Re: v/t. --- v/i.

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>]

On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:54:01 -0800 (PST) "Lieven L. Litaer" 
<lieven@handshake.de> wrote:

> ghItlh Qermaq:
> 
> >Since you didn't put KLBC, and you know to do that, here I go.
> Of course :-)

Ahah! This door opens for ME as WELL! Mwahahahahahahahaaaa...
 
> ><legh> is clearly OK as a transitive verb...
> >"Die" transitive? Not in the dialect I speak...
> 
> >the word "die" is only int. as I have observed.
> Interesting! What about "He died a natural death"? (That's what my dic
> says.)

Consider the MEANING, not just the WORDS. To die a natural death 
does not mean that you are performing the action of dying upon 
the natural death. The natural death is a description of the 
means of dying. Of course, in Klingon, the concept of "natural 
death" is yet another thing to contend with. A Klingon would 
consider having a betleH driven through his chest to be a 
natural death. He would consider a quiet death in a hospital bed 
quite unnatural.

A death in battle, natural for a Klingon, would be an honorable 
death. {batlh Hegh}. "He died honorably." The quiet, human 
"natural causes" death would be a dishonorable death. {batlhHa' 
Hegh}. "He died dishonorably."

So, do you make the cultural shift and consider what a Klingon 
would consider a natural death, or do you change the term to 
convey the description of the same kind of death? Is it an 
honorable death or a dishonorable one? You have to decide what 
it is you are trying to convey. Working from words alone is not 
enough. Work with the meanings.

> >But <Hegh> is a fine example of a verb in Klingon which cannot take an
> >object. Add a <-moH> to it, however, and it is useful as a transitive verb.
> And what would that mean? "Cause s.o. to die". Isn't that just {HoH}?

I would not argue with that.
 
> >Great questions, muHwI'.
> Thanks.
> 
> Quvar muHwI'
> (Lieven L. Litaer, Germany)
> 
> -=finally a happy and proud member of the KLI=-

charghwI' 'utlh