tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 11 08:53:29 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:53:27 CST
- In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:16:18 -0800
ja' HovqIj:
> ><cha'bogh nav> is interesting. I think it should have an object since
> ><cha'> seems to be transitive only, but I'll keep it in mind.
>
'ej jang ghunchu'wI'. ja':
> I'm not sure what you mean by "transitive only" -- any transitive verb
> can be used with an unstated object, like {Sop} or {laD}. The bottom
> of TKD page 33 talks about this sort of usage.
>
maybe this is a German thing :)
I remember having the same problem, actually arguing about it
quite some with (I guess) charghwI', SuStel, maybe ~mark and
probably you too, ghunchu'wI'.
the way I got to think about it is that although there is an
object, it is not stated - either because its exact label is
unknown, or because it just isn't important enough to be mentioned.
so, yes, a {cha'bogh nav} pictures _something_, but it is
(in this case) so obvious _what_ it pictures (an image) that
it would be weak and redundant (thus _suspicious_) to state it.
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]