tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 11 14:25:29 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: cheng Sa' may'bom bom mu' cha'DIch
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: cheng Sa' may'bom bom mu' cha'DIch
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 17:24:56 EST
jatlh charghwI':
>I just want to clarify the term "ungrammatical". It means
>that the grammar is broken. That is syntax. The Rules.
>
>A separate category of meaning is symantics. That has to do
>with the meaning, not the grammar. It has to do with what
>words mean and not the rules of grammar.
>
>In all cases below, {jIbIv} is grammatically correct,
>though in one case it makes sense (symantics) and in the
>other case it doesn't (again, symantics).
I was questioning whether {jIbIv} obeys Klingon rules of transitivity. Isn't
transitivity a function of grammar and not necessarily a function of
semantics? For example, I would think that "I snooze a nap" is semantically
comprehensible but grammatically unacceptable, because "snooze" is an
intransitive verb.
- DujHoD