tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 28 15:38:12 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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


I'd like to take a little time to talk about a very annoying Klingon verb,
{vIH}. Some of us hold certain misconceptions about it. One of these I am now
going to try to clear up. {vIH} is intransitive, viz., it cannot take an
object, viz., it means "move" in the sense of "be in motion". Any 2nd edition
TKD will tell you that.
    Now, there does remain a controversy over {vIH} as to whether it, being
intransitive, can be used adjectivally. My vote is NO, and I'll tell you why.
     Actually, {vIH} is not really intransitive. It can take an object. Now,
before anyone starts gnashing teeth and frothing at the mouth, l;et me
explain myself. TKD, section 3.3.5, page 28 reads as follows: "There are a
few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, such as {ghoS} /approach,
proceed/. The locative suffix need not be used on nouns which are the objects
of such verbs."
It gives the examples {Duj ghoStaH} and {yuQ wIghoStaH}. Other verbs "whose
meanings include locative notions" include {yIt}, {qet}, {puv}, {leng}, among
many others. {vIH} is a verb of motion. Doesn't it seem appropriate that a
construction like {poS wIvIH} would mean "We move to the left (side)." Ere,
{vIH} can take objects. So, hopefully that reduced some of the gnashing and

{vIH} is intransitive, but it really isn't. (Gnashers and frothers remain
calm. This all makes sense, really it does.)

So, if {vIH} is to take any object, it would be the location to which
something moves, and not a thing that someone pushes or pulls to a location.
{vIHmoH} is the verb for that sort of meaning.

Verbs of motion don't need the locative suffix. That's probably why Okrand
used {qetbogh loD} in the famous proverb rather than *{loD qet}. Because {loD
qet} would probably mean "He/She/It runs [to] the man."

Dap rur'a'? 'e' vItulbe'.

Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos

Back to archive top level