tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 08 23:03:29 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Attending a school
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Attending a school
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 02:02:45 EDT
In a message dated 8/3/1999 12:19:09 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< But I have trouble believing
Klingons would do something so roundabout as stick the object of a
transitive verb in a type-5 noun phrase. Like I said, I can't properly
justify this. But I do quite consistently say things like "qep'a' vIjeS." >>
==========
I was on your side entirely until I ran into so many persons on this listserv
telling me that I could use neither {jeS} nor {qIm} with a direct object. My
reasoning parallels yours in believing that Klingon verbs may be either
transitive with one set of pronominals or intransitive with another set. As
to whether Klingons would convolute sentences to avoid using a direct object
and using instead a "locative" construction, I would like to believe that
both {jeS} and {qIm} may take direct objects, even though TKD did not
specifically gloss these verbs with prepositional concepts included.
I feel there exists a lot evidence for your (and my former) viewpoint.
Klingon verbs have felt to me all along as if they may take direct objects
including the prepositional concept. {ghoS}, when translated as "goes
to/toward" is obvious. The problem arose when we realized that "approaches"
is one of the glosses; this translation of {ghoS} obviously can take a direct
object.
In conclusion, without "proof" from MO himself, I will put myself out on a
limb with those who have been criticizing me for using {jeS} with a direct
object. I will return to using it with a direct object, sensing that ~mark
is "feeling" the Klingon language correctly.
peHruS