tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 05 05:38:16 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jajlo'
QetlhIS wrote:
> ...[If] i can speak "Hol", I should also
> be able to place a different object there....
I replied:
> That's pushing it a bit, I think. {jatlh} appears to have the meaning
> "speak (a language)" as well as an intransitive "speak [use voice]".
QetlhIS writes:
>The person addressed being addressed as vaD in lack of an indirect
>object is just fine. But i still don't see why I can place one noun
>there, and another noun not. I don't see how those are looked upon
>differently. Perhaps I'm missing something?
Consider the word {bIv} "break (rules)". It can take {chut} or {pab}
or maybe even {lurDech} as an object. But {pIpyuS} doesn't fit; it's
not a rule. One category of nouns works; others do not. Similarly,
{jab} "serve (food)" can act on foods and beverages, and in poetic or
ironic situations perhaps other items that are placed in front of the
one being served. But you don't "serve" a master with this verb; for
that, you use {toy'}.
The usage we've observed in canon suggests that the only object {jatlh}
takes is a language. When used as a verb of saying, it's never had an
object of any sort.
-- ghunchu'wI'