tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 27 21:16:53 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Qochbe'
ja' peHruS:
>As much as I hope that the verb {Qoch} (and virtually any other Klingon verb)
>is capable of taking a Direct Object, my comment here is about {-chuq}. TKD
>tells us that verbs with a Type 1 suffix never take an object and the
>no-object prefixes must be employed.
Your point, taken straight from TKD, is noted. But did you ever consider
*why* the type 1 verb suffixex {-chuq} and {-'egh} are incompatible with an
object? It's because there is already an effective object on the verb --
they indicate that the recipient of the verb's action is the same as the
subject. That's why I'm wary of proposals like {Qochbe'chuq}, since they
require that there be an appropriate object for the verb to act upon.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh