tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 03 21:45:07 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KGT confirmations
- From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
- Subject: KGT confirmations
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:06:39 -0400
ghItlh SuStel
>...There's at least one word that simply does not get an object. You
cannot make
>the argument of "maybe it can take an object, but we don't know what
sort."
>(You cannot look to the slang version of this word; Okrand explains away
the
>apparent exception.)
>
>If there's one word, there are probably more. I refuse to believe that
out of
>every word in the vocabulary, the word for "drool" was singled out as the
only
>intransitive verb.
>
>p. 154 "The verb {moH} (literally, 'be ugly') normally does not take an
>object." (He then goes on to explain that the slang version does, but
this is
>irrelevant.)
>
>In most cases, I believe the canon definition to be a good measure of
>transitivity. Not in every case.
Well, things like {moH} and {bol} make absolutely no sense as taking an
object; I won't say "transitive" here, because, as Krankor stated, it's
likely a non-issue. It would just be weird. I think the topic here isn't
transitivity, but sensibility.
Qapla'
qoror