tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 03 23:14:47 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jajlo'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: jajlo'
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 02:14:15 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 97-06-03 14:52:55 EDT, SuStel writes:
<< I agree with your analysis, but let's be clear: the word {muvmoH} in the
Addendum is defined as "recruit (v)." Transitivity is NOT indicated. (If
it
were, we'd have a lot less arguing about it.) >>
So far I have not seen transitivity indicated for any other verb, either.
I have an idea, whether radical to you all, that ALL tlhIngan Hol verbs may
be regarded as void of transitivity/intransitivity. They merely either take
an object or they do not take an object. Although theoretically all verbs
may take an object, many TKD glosses are clearly stative verbs in other
languages and cannot be considered transitive in those languages. Meanwhile,
adding {-moH} to a Klingon verb (or stative verb) often indicates to the
English-speaker transitivity. However, I argue that even verbs with the
{-moH} suffix need not be considered transitive.
lojmIt poSmoH loD is clearly transitive to the thinker of English. In
tlhIngan Hol the verb merely has an object. jIpoSmoH is a tlhIngan Hol verb
without an object, that's all. It means, obviously, "I open," not "I open
it."
Okay. Some, many, tlhIngan Hol verbs just do not seem to take an object.
Particularly the so-called stative verbs do not.
Well, so much for rambling. My underlying radical tenet is that tlhIngan Hol
verbs are not classified at all as transitive and intransitive. Insofar as
logical, any tlhIngan Hol verb may take an object or may not take an object.
peHruS