tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 30 19:44:06 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: qIm/qImHa'
ja' Qermaq:
>We also have in TDK qImHa' = disregard (v). I cannot think of a useful
>meaning
>of "disregard" that is intransitive. (Neither can Webster!) The word always
>takes an object.
In *English*, maybe, but not necessarily in Klingon.
>If my logic is correct, one of the following premises is correct.
>
>A) qImHa' is intransitive because its root is, and a sentence like
>*jIqImHa' =
>I disregard* is acceptable. Not likely.
Why is this any less likely than {jISop} "I eat"?
>B) qImHa' is transitive, and so is qIm - but why have qIm as a transitive
>verb
>when MO went through the trouble of providing buS as well, and making it
>specifically transitive? It doesn't seem reasonable to assume this.
Well...see also {pI'} and {ror}, {bIt} and {jotHa'}, {vaj} and {SuvwI'}...
>C) qIm is intransitive and (perhaps by magic?) qImHa' is transitive. This
>would just plain upset me. Nowhere is there any indication that -Ha' can
>change a verb in this way. Unfortunately, it appears that, unpleasant as it
>is, this must be the correct answer! (And we all know *someone* is going to
>run with this where they ought not to, and say that this means taDHa' = melt
>(v.t.) and other such nonsense!)
jIQochqu'. You have ruled out what I see as two quite reasonable premises
in order to conclude that the unreasonable one is correct.
-- ghunchu'wI'