tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 03 04:28:08 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[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.

Kevin A. Wilson

Back to archive top level