tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 11 08:53:29 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: HovqIj jun Hov wov

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

Back to archive top level