tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 23 19:10:46 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: charghwI's wish list (was Re: perpetual...)

>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 00:25:49 -0800
>From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>

>ghItlh charghwI'

>> 2. Give us a little more clarity on how we are to handle
>> transitive/intransitive status on specific verbs. Ideally, this
>> would mean having each verb in the vocabulary marked as one or
>> the other, or some new grammatical algorithm we currently do
>> not have to determine, for example, if I move my knife, is that
>> {tajwIj vIvIH} or {tajwIj vIvIHmoH}, or either.
>> 
>in both cases I don't see the need. maybe it's just that the
>examples are not close enough to the point...

>as for vIH: if you use it transitively, there should be
>   no problem at all (i.e. you are understood);
>   if you use it intransitively, there is the ambiguity
>   that you just wanted to say that you 'generally move
>   things around' when you say jIvIH, but aside from
>   that I really can't imagine when one would need to
>   say such a thing, most often context should make
>   clear what you really meant

Context works okay in a language like English, which does not clearly
distinguish its transitive verbs from its intransitives.  But Klingon
clearly does; hence the whole existence of the -moH suffix.  If Klingon
relied on context like English does, and as you suggest, then there would
be no need for the separate listings of "vem" and "vemmoH."  After all,
"jIvem" would have to mean "I awaken" and "*qavem" would have to mean "I
awaken you."  But we know that Klingon *does* care whether its verbs are
transitive or not, so I think charghwI''s question is well-posed.

That said, the particular example is NOT well-chosen, since we know the
answer.  Says Okrand, in a toast:

matay'DI', vIHtaHbogh bIQ rur mu'qaDmey.

This is definitely an intransitive use of "vIH", indicating water that is
in motion.

~mark

Back to archive top level