tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 21 16:06:42 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
"Stative" verbs and objects
ja' peHruS:
>SKI: Other than Stative Verbs, marked in TKD and KGT by "be .......," MO
>said to me at the 4th KLI Conference that all verbs may take an object or
>does not need to take an object. The verb pronomial prefixes determine. To
>get a stative verb to take an object, we affix {-moH}.
How much of this is a quote and how much is your own commentary? If Marc
Okrand explained "Stative Verbs" as having the definition "be (something)"
in the word lists, then I want to know what the object of {Sach} can be.
And {yIt}, {qet}, {Qong}, etc. There are a lot of stative verbs that do
not have a "be (something)" definition. If the "marked in TKD and KGT by
'be .......,'" is your own phrase, I think you've used an inappropriately
narrow meaning of "Stative Verb".
The linguistic distinction between "stative" and "usable as an adjectival
verb or in a {law'/puS} phrase in Klingon" is what led me to start calling
the verbs defined as "be (something)" verbs of *quality* instead of verbs
of *state*.
-- ghunchu'wI'