tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 24 14:06:29 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...)

According to Mark E. Shoulson:
> 
> ...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

Well, I intentionally chose it because I got in a fight with
Krankor on this one without a decisive victory. He said it
could be transitive or intransitive. I said it could only be
intransitive. Okrand proved that it can be intransitive, but he
didn't prove that it could not be transitive, so it is still a
verb that needs a better explanation as to the full range of
its potential transitivity, or people like Krankor and I will
simply continue to disagree without any authority to determine
who is more correct.

I still believe that {vIH} is probably only instransitive, and
I'm sure that Krankor still believes that it can be used
transitively with the right prefix. It is an argument that
deserves a judgement, since without one from Okrand, the rest
of us are basically wasting our time arguing about it. There is
no proof one way or the other.

This is why I'd like Okrand to speak on it, and while I STILL
think it is a perfectly good example.

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level