tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 04 11:53:32 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KGT confirmations

[email protected] on behalf of qoror wrote:
> ghItlh SuStel
> >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.

Transitivity is indeed the issue.  ~mark's classic example is the verb {Qong}. 
 How do we know that it can't take an object?  What if the object is the thing 
you sleep on?  Or the length of time you sleep?

Similarly, before KGT, how would we know that {bol} cannot take an object?  
Suppose its object was the body part that one's drool ended up on?  Or the 
amount of saliva that one allowed to leave the mouth?

Now, of course, we get Okrand telling us flat out that a couple of verbs which 
are defined in TKD with intransitive-seeming definitions do not take objects.  
This does not prove my point conclusively, but it does support the idea that 
the TKD definitions tend to be worded in such a way as to indicate what the 
correct object, if any, should be.  (Notice that Okrand has been very careful 
to continue to do this in KGT.)  There's also a structure in Esperanto which 
would fit in nicely in Klingon were it allowed (I don't happen to remember 
what it is; I don't study Esperanto), but the {moH} example shows that such a 
rule could not be applied in the general case.  (It doesn't rule out 
exceptions, but you cannot derive exceptions, and therefore cannot say what 
they are.)

I happen to think Krankor is wrong: Klingon verbs DO have specific 
transitivity.  Certain verbs CANNOT take objects, and certain others MUST take 
them (there's at least one in KGT; I can't remember what it is right now, but 
I'm pretty sure it's there), even if it's just "things in general."

Whether Klingon linguists care at all about actually classifying transitive 
and intransitive verbs as such is something I can't speak to . . .

-- 
SuStel
Stardate 97676.5

Back to archive top level