tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 16 07:18:19 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIloS rIntaH. jIlI'qa'laH.
On Sun, 15 Jan 1995 [email protected] wrote:
> >According to [email protected]:
> >> ... tugh *Hamlet* jabbI'ID tIpIH, 'ay' wej DoD cha', vagh DoD cha'
> >> je vIDubqu'moHlI'.
> >nuq? DaDubqu'moHlI''a'? DaDubqu'lI' 'e' vIQub. Dub'eghlaH bIH
> >'ach DaQaHnIS neH 'e' DapIH'a'? taQqu' ghu'vam.
> No, actually, the English word "improve" can be used transitively and
> intransitively.
> <snip>
> I doubt that Klingon would do this, because we have the generic transitizer
> {-moH}. But the fact that Okrand failed to indicate the transitivty of {Dub},
> as well as several other verbs, is the source of confusion, and will
> doubtlessly remain so until he wises up and clarifies the transitivity issue.
>
> Basically, that leaves neither of us with any basis on which to judge the
> transitivity of {Dub}, at least until/unless it appears in canon.
Not to throw too much gasoline, but I thought it was clear that Klingon
verbs aren't really dividable into transitive and intransitive. There are
enough examples in canon of strange uses of the prefixes showing Klingon
doesn't care about this distinction. Anyway, Okrand having omitted
marking things vi and vt is cause enough for me to scream. Hey, Okrand's
basically going to tell you that transitivity isn't an aspect of Klingon
verbs outside of >-moH<'s existence, which he describes as "Cause", not
"Generic Transitizer".
>qembeltaS<