Re: KLBC: Two IFs on one THEN?

[Terrence Donnelly <pag000@mail.connect.more.net>]

At 09:10 AM 1/28/99 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:53:23 -0800 (PST) Terrence Donnelly 
><pag000@mail.connect.more.net> wrote:
>
>> >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. 
>
>It IS the point. Just because you want to ignore it doesn't make 
>it not the point. There are no verbs used in canon with {-chuq} 
>added to them that do not, in normal useage, have direct 
>objects.
>
[...}

>It doesn't translate. Klingon does not give a separate word as 
>object in this reflexive construction, but the POINT is that 
>there is a limited set of verbs that can take {-chuq}, and all 
>the stative, intransitive, adjectival verbs are excluded from 
>that set. {Sum} is such a verb and cannot have {-chuq} added to 
>it. That is what started this discussion, so that IS the point 
>of this discussion. 

That may have been what you were intending to say, and in that case, I
agree with you. /-chuq/ can't be used on verbs which are normally 
intransitive.  But that's not what your original post said:

>> << 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 understand now that you were saying "...always implies the transitivity
of the original verb", but it sure looked like you were saying that
/-chuq/ formed a transitive verb which nevertheless has a 'no object' verb
prefix.

My mistake, I guess.

-- ter'eS