tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 28 06:23:33 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Two IFs on one THEN?

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:09:12 -0800 (PST) 

> In a message dated 1/27/1999 12:04:51 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> 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 
> 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

Back to archive top level