tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 02 14:57:07 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: KLBC: qIm/qImHa'



[email protected] on behalf of Neal Schermerhorn wrote:

> This was based on my (correct?) understanding of SuStel's interpretation of 
> dictionary entries. If it says "throw up", we cannot assume the verb can 
take 
> an object like in "I throw up in the paper bag." We must use a locative in 
> that sentence, and others will require a different Type-5 suffix on the 
> 'object-qoq'.

My interpretation is a little more flexible than you are using it.  I 
generally assume that a particular translation was chosen for the definition 
with its transitivity in mind.  I am aware that Okrand was not consistent in 
this.  I also give much less reliance to constructed words.  If it's a simple 
word, fine.  If it's a verb or noun plus a suffix, then I'd prefer to use it 
as such, and assume that the definition was included, not to show 
transitivity, but to simply give an example of a commonly used word.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97501.9


Back to archive top level