tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 20 16:27:57 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: juHHomwIj pong
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: juHHomwIj pong
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 19:27:24 -0400
96-09-20 09:53:55 EDT, jatlh charghwI':
> juHHomwIjvaD *reHpa* vIpong. jIreHmeH pa' 'oH, ej reH pa' 'oH
> tIqwIj'e'.
hee hee!
> Meanwhile, we have canon suggesting that the following two
> sentences are equivalent:
>
> jIHvaD taj yInob.
> taj HInob.
Is there any canon which gives this sort of equivalency for any verb other
than {nob}? Almost all examples use this one verb, and I, for one, would
like to consider {nob} the exception, not the rule. I especially take this
viewpoint when another problem word, {pong}, is handled by Okrand in an
entirely different manner.
> My personal spin on this sort of thing is that the second
> example only works if the indirect object and the direct object
> are not of the same person.
> So, if in our one canon use of the verb {pong}, the ditransitive
> English verb becomes a Klingon verb with the direct object being
> the name and the indirect object being the entity named, I argue
> that since the direct object will always be third person (the
> name given), so long as the indirect object is NOT third person,
> you should be able to use the verb {pong} according to my
> original guess:
Assuming that {nob} is following a general pattern of verbs which are
ditransitive in English, then I agree with you. But I don't think that we
can make the assumption that Okrand is making a statement about English
ditransitivity; instead, he is showing us how to use {pong} and how to use
{nob}, and each one is given a different treatment.
SuStel
Stardate 96722.6