tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 15 12:00:18 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: transitive verbs
DraQoS:
: I am not talking about dropping things from the definition. It is
: where there is insufficient data in the definition that I start to
: wonder. And I worry that accepting the verbatum definition as all
: there is [...]
But the dictionary definition is not "all there is". In many cases (not all,
unfortunately) we have examples of how Maltz/Okrand has used the word in
context, which allows us to determine finer points of usage. One of these
cases is, in fact, {Hagh} "laugh":
Hagh qoHpu' neH HeghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'
Only fools laugh while warriors die. PK
cheqotlhchugh maHaghbe''a'
Tickle us, do we not laugh? TKW
Note that {Hagh} is used intransitively both times. The absence of a
transitive example may well be due to the small sample and is not, therefore,
conclusive evidence the verb can *never* be used transitively but these
examples, plus the dictionary definition, tip the scales for most of us. Also,
Okrand is usually pretty good at indicating whether a verb contains a "built-in
preposition", which usually indicates the verb behaves transitively. (E.g.
{Dab} "reside in/at, dwell in/at" and {lIch} "pour (into/onto anything)" --
both from KGT.)
One way to convey the idea you're looking for is to re-examine the dictionary
with the help of a thesaurus for similar words and you'll find {vaq} "mock" and
{nuS} "ridicule". They're not the same thing as "laugh at" in all particulars,
but workable in some contexts. Not a perfect solution, but we use the tools at
hand.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons