tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 02 14:57:07 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: qIm/qImHa'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: qIm/qImHa'
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 97 13:37:34 UT
[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