tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 11 14:34:12 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' HomDoq:

> 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.

I have no problem when we're talking about <Sop>, <yaj> etc. jISop.
jIyaj. It's probably because these words can be used without objects in
English (I'm eating. I understand) or German (Ich esse. Ich verstehe.),
too. But when it comes to <cha'> I  have a strange feeling. It
displays.(?) Es zeigt.(?) I can see your point, that it is just
unimportant in the first place _what_ is displayed. It doesn't seem to
be wrong, just strange. (By now everybody should have found out my real
name: HovHuj...)

Uh-oh... something interesting is taking form in my mind:
ghawran cha'bogh navmey Daleghpu''a'?
Have you seen...
               ...the pictures that show Gowron?
	       ...Gowron's pictures?
Seems to be another hunter-killer probe...


>                                            Marc Ruehlaender
>                                            aka HomDoq

Back to archive top level