Re: SengwIj

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@virginia.edu>]

On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:15:12 +-300 Carleton Copeland 
<copeland@eycis.com> wrote:

> jatlh charghwI' 'utlh:
> 
> > lughDI' mu' <<buS>> mu' <<qIm>> lo' qa'ral
> > 'ej *object* lo'laHbe' mu' <<qIm>>.
> 
> QaghwIj vIchIDba'ta': The gloss on {qIm} in TKD gives no reason to believe 
> it can take an object. Curious, then, that {qImHa'} can. (You gotta 
> *disregard* something, qar'a'?) So, on top of all the other neat tricks it 
> can do with verbs, {-Ha} has at least once turned an intransitive verb into 
> a transitive.

While this has been discussed, it has never been proven that 
your presumption is correct. So far as I know, {qIm} has only 
been used as a command in canon. {yIqIm! yIbuS!}. All instances 
in which an object was used involved {buS} and not {qIm}. As a 
command, "Disregard!" requires no object.

We thought that {Dub} required no object, and we'd use {DubmoH} 
when we wanted an object, but in both canon examples we've had, 
{Dub} took an object. Usage supercedes the dictionary gloss 
whenever they disagree. Everyone knows that I'm much more 
conservative about interpreting these things than most people 
most of the time, so it is not surprising that I'll continue to 
not use an object with {qIm} or {qImHa'}. If I want to use an 
object, I'll use {buS} or {buSHa'}.
 
> qa'ral

charghwI'