tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 05 05:35:22 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

RE: KGT confirmations

• From: Chet Braun <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: KGT confirmations
• Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:40:57 -0700
• Encoding: 23 TEXT

>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

It does sound reasonable however I recall Marc saying, at qep'a' loSDIch 
that there was no such thing as transitivity in Klingon.  If I recall 
correctly he seemed somewhat perturbed that the issue was still coming up. 
 Krankor seemed pleased.  I'm not exactly sure my recollection is correct 
 though and I sure don't know how that fits in with the *seeming* 
transitivity.  But then I'm not a linguist.

HetaQ

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: KGT confirmations
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: buy a drink (again)
• Next by Date: Fw: qIb lengwI' tlhIngan Hol
• Prev by thread: Re: KGT confirmations
• Next by thread: RE: KGT confirmations
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level