tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 22 05:52:07 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Quj bej Holtej qorDu'
SuStelvo':
> From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
> >"Be near" does seem ripe for an
> >object, though it is one of those verbs beginning with "be". It
> >is an interesting verb, since it both strongly suggests an
> >object, as you have used it, {Duj vISum} and it suggests that
> >it could be used adjectivally {Duj Sum yIghoS!}.
>
> Okrand himself has held off on answering that question. The main reason I
> assume it is intransitive is because {Hop}, described simply as "far" (on
> Conversational Klingon) would have to be "far from" to be transitive, and
> {Sum}/{Hop} certainly does seem to be a corresponding pair.
I don't entirely agree. Just because they have corresponding intransitive
uses, doesn't mean they *must* have corresponding transitive ones. (That
is, if /Sum/ has a transitive use at all, which we don't know.)
> I certainly don't like {Duj vIHop} as "I am far from the ship," but I see
> this as necessary if you're going to say {Duj vISum}.
I agree that I don't like */Duj vIHop/, any more than I like */Soj vIghung/.
But I don't see this as a necessary consequence of /Duj vISum/.
If I were to say /DujDaq jISum/, would you understand that I'm near the
ship? When I read that, I kind of wonder what it is I'm near at the ship.
Now, I suspect this is more due to interference from English than anything
inherent in Klingon. But it was that uncertainty of /DujDaq jISum/ that
lead me to write /poS yotlh Sum 'ay'maj/. Either way the logic seems
reasonable and the results seem questionable.
> {Hop Duj} and {Sum
> Duj} work fairly well, when used correctly.
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 98387.0
--Holtej