tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 07 08:42:51 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SengwIj
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: SengwIj
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 11:41:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:15:12 +-300 Carleton Copeland
<[email protected]> 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'