tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 07 13:21:20 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: tlhIngan Hol ghojwI' Hem

>For someone who makes such a big deal about not being too much like
>English (and, I would add, usually with a good deal of validity),
>you certainly seem to have no problem blithely assuming that English
>notions of transitivity/intransitivity apply to Klingon verbs.  Why
>can't Hem take an object?  The only reason I can glean here seems to
[...] blah blah blah

What I really meant was that I was unsure as to the legitimacy of {vIHem}. I
was cautioning against trying to match the English structure too closely,
*but at the same time*, I was admitting that the object of {Hem} could very
well be the thing which one is proud of. My opinion on this matter is
middle-of-the-road (actually quite a dangerous spot).


Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos

Back to archive top level