tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 25 22:20:25 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

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

In a message dated 1/24/1999 7:18:48 AM US Mountain Standard Time, writes:

<< Dochvam qelpu' latlh ghojwI'pu' law' 'e' vISovbej. >>

mu'tlhegh {Dochvam lubuSpu' latlh ghojwI'pu' law'} vIchup.
"focus on, concentrate on, think about" 'oS wot {buS}.
'ej wot moHaq {lu-} Dalo'nIS.

Doch qelchugh wot vaj v/t. 'oH
In this case {qel} means "concerns, is about."
Doch qelbe'chugh wot vaj v/i. 'oH
Others will provide lots of advice.  Here is my little bit.  Klingon verbs
which merely describe the state (of the qualities or attributes) of the
subject of the sentence can never take an object, unless you add -moH.
Several Klingon verbs make no sense attempting to take an object, e.g., {ba'},
{vum}.  Most others may take an object or may take no object.  I remember
reading somewhere (not verbatim, probably) "It is not known if all Klingon
verbs of action can take an object."  A case in point is {yaj}.  Do you merely
understand, or do you understand something?  {jatlh}:  Do you speak, or do you
say something?  Klingon is beautiful in that you can use either of two sets of
pronominal prefixes to indicate whether there is or is not an object.  So,
when we encounter a sentence like {bIjatlh 'e' yImev} "Stop your speaking," we
see that {jatlh} does not take a object in this case.  {tlhIngan Hol
Dajatlh'a'?} "Do you speak Klingon?" shows that you speak something (Klingon

In conclusion, I would not specify that a Klingon verb definitely is v/t.,
since it may be used without an object at any time to show that you are doing
the act "in general."  If you wish to specify v/i. verbs, you may do so for
verbs which logically just don't work trying to take an object.


Back to archive top level