tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 21 18:25:54 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} `Smoking`, in defe
- From: David Barron <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} `Smoking`, in defe
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:25:54 -0700
k > From: [email protected]
k > Now, I stick my neck out further: I feel that ALL verbs, other than
k > stative
k > verbs without <-moH>, can be either intransitive or transitive
k > depending upon
k > the usage of pronomial verb prefixes. If one uses <jI->, <bI->,
k > <ma->, or
k > <Su->, the verb remains intransitive and does not take an object. If
k > the
k > verb uses the pronomial verb prefixes indicating an object, or if an
k > object
k > is present, the verb is transitive. To me, sticking my neck way out
k > there
k > for getting arguments, the stem verb can be either.
Its times like these I wish Krankor was back on the list.
He has presented some pretty persuasive arguments supposting this
theory, none of which I can think of right now.
In general Krankor and I both like to believe tlhIngan Hol is
much more malable than one might first think.
david
---
* OFFLINE 1.58 * rInDI' qepvam "Denny's"Daq maghomjaj