tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 20 11:13:30 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

HIvqa' veqlargh (was: Re: ghargh ngaSwI')



vIghItlh:

>mumeyvam vIQochbe'. Huvqu' Hoch.

'ej ghItlh Xardana:

>Here is my point:  Immediately I began wondering about other words that
>people writing on this list have been using only intransitively,
><<Qoch/Qochbe'>> coming to mind first.  Now I see that the founder of KLI
>does use <<Qochbe'>> transitively.

yIqIm!

Although I am indeed the founder of the KLI, I am not *not* one of the
KLI's grammarians. As they will all be quick to point out, I make lots of
mistakes. It's probably a bad idea to lean too heavily on my posts to the
list.

In hindsight, I'd concede that my use of {Qochbe'} above is in error.

I do, however, feel that the constraints put on Klingon regarding the
transitive/intransitive distinction are somewhat conflated. One argue if
the reason Okrand left such a discussion out of TKD is because of the
intended target audience or because it wasn't relavent to his language, and
we've heard both arguments before. Certainly there's been, is, and will
continue to be (and could you ask for a better use of -taH?) much debate on
the topic, with further questions and examples concerning a variety of
verbs and the -moH suffix.

Frustrting stuff, but that's the way it is.

Lawrence




Back to archive top level