tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 03 04:28:08 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vIH
On Thu, 3 Mar 1994, Will Martin wrote:
> charghwI' responds:
> On this we totally agree, though for different reasons. The last
> paragraph of the wordlist introduction of TKD on pages 78-79 give the
> clearest description of which words can be used as adjectives (assuming that
> the rest of them can't). I do not believe that being intransitive is enough.
>
> (quote from TKD deleted)
>
> I believe that "move" is the word that people will look for when they
> mean "be in motion". It is the key word, even though the English word "move"
> does not properly fit {vIH} because the English verb can be either transitive
> or intransitive, while {vIH} is only intransitive, unless {-moH} is added. I
> do not believe that {vIH} can be an adjective because "move" is not an
> adjective. "Moving" might be considered an adjective, but {vIH} does not mean
> "moving". It means "move, be in motion". I don't think this has anything to
> do with locatives.
I agree that being intransitive is not enough. I think we need to
make a distinction not only between transitive and intransitive verbs, but
also between intransitive and stative verbs. The verb +qet+ means run and
is intransitive. The English would be "I run". The stative equivalent in
English would be "I am running", but this verb does not have a stative
equivalent. "I am running" can be expressed with +qet+, but this does not
mean that +qet+ is also stative. I would suggest that verbs that have a
form of "to be" in their definition in TKD would qualify as stative and
that only stative verbs can be used as adjectives.
Qapla'
Kevin A. Wilson