tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 28 07:45:49 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Two IFs on one THEN?
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Two IFs on one THEN?
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:43:22 -0600
At 06:38 AM 1/28/99 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
>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.
>
Thhat's not the point. The point is that the addition of /-chuq/
changes the transitivity of the verb you add it to. That's surely
why Okrand makes the point of telling us we must use the 'no object'
verb prefixes. In English, we do indeed show the reflexive mode of
a verb by a pronoun object ('each other'), but there's no reason to assume
that English modes translate to Klingon.
-- ter'eS