tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 28 06:23:33 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Two IFs on one THEN?
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Two IFs on one THEN?
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:23:27 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:09:12 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 1/27/1999 12:04:51 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << Oops. Suddenly, I am knocked down by a sudden gust of memory.
> {Sumchuq X Y je} would NOT work because {Sum} can ONLY be
> intransitive. It is a verb that can be used adjectivally, so it
> can never take an object. The {-chuq} suffix, despite its
> verb's prefix indicating differently, always implies
> transitivity.
>
> I apologize for any confusion I may have caused by my eroneous
> suggestion. >>
>
> This is where I believe Klingon differs from English. In Klingon the suffix
> -chuq does not imply transitivity after all. That is precisely why it takes
> the "no object" pronominal prefixes.
Great. Now, show me just ONE example ANYWHERE IN CANON that
shows {-chuq} used on an intransitive verb. I know *I* can't
find one. It's a great theory. Show it in action, or give up on
it.
> Furthermore, if we look at Spanish, for example, -chuq would equate to the
> "reflexive," still intransitive.
Once again, show me the example and I'll agree with you.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh