tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 23 22:08:00 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: of/about
ja' Qermaq:
>>vay' vIyIt = I walk something.
>>I don't think so. {naj} could easily be intransitive, like {Qong} and {ba'}
>>and {qet}.
>
>I don't think so either, but differently. What are you walking? What are
>you sleeping? What are you sitting?
I'm walking a path from my house to a river.
I'm sleeping the sleep of the dead.
I'm sitting my neighbor's kid.
These words *can* be transitive in English, if the meaning is chosen
carefully.
>My point was that *vInaj* = I dream it
>- that answers the question "What do I dream?" Where the object of yIt is
>unclear, the object of naj could be only one thing.
Are you saying that because the object of "dream" can be only one thing?
I'm not sure that "I dream a battle" is grammatically correct English.
>Whether it can be the
>object is not for me to say, but a comparison with 'hope' sets up an
>interesting parallel.
>
>Hope isn't really transitive in English - I can't hope a situation, but I
>can hope for a situation. But MO says we can say 'e' vItul to mean 'I hope
>that (the previous sentence is acted)'.
I can hope [that] I get a job. I can hope [that] I am understood.
In English, the object of "hope" is a complete sentence, exactly the
way it's used in Klingon.
>Dream is similar. I won't say the
>same - that's MO's job - but it seems reasonable to translate jIpuvlaH 'e'
>vInaj as I dream that I can fly.
I can accept this. My understanding of "dream" in English is a lot like
"hope" and "think", with its object being another sentence.
>Dream would be a very boring word without a transitive use...
I disagree. One can always say things like this:
{jInajtaHvIS may' vIleghlaw'} or {bInajtaHvIS roj DaSamjaj}
-- ghunchu'wI'