tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 17 20:21:47 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qep'a' veb / Hov leng muchmey
ja' "Clayton Rodrigo Cardoso" <[email protected]>:
>1) ghaytanHa' qep'a' veb vIjeS 'ach leng Huch,
>mebpa'mey Huch, Soj Huch, muvpu'ghach je vItaymoHchugh,
>vIjeSchugh Huch 'ar vIpoQ?
lengmeH Huch SovlaH SoH neH. Philadelphia-Daq qaSDI' qep'a', latlh Huchmo'
vIloyqang.
Hoch jaj, chaq $50-$80 poQ mebpa'mey malja'. pa' bowav SoH latlh je.
bISopmeH yapbej $10; chaq qaq $20. ghaytan 'uQ'a'vaD 'ut $25.
bIjeSmeH ghaytan 'ut $25.
>pab vuD: why people in this list tend to assume that a verb is
>intransitive when Marc Okrand doesn't show its regency
>explicity?
Since you bring up {jeS}, I think you're asking the wrong question when you
focus on transitivity. What you're probably wanting to know is why many of
us think that verbs with "obviously" intransitive glosses like (jeS}
"participate" and {Qoch} "disagree" are indeed intransitive. It's because
of the many cases where Okrand *did* include an explicit indication that a
word has an object, like {ghuH} "prepare for, be alerted to" and {chu'}
"engage, activate (a device)".
>I don't agree with the use of (-Daq jIjeS) because
>it sounds like a word-by-word translation from English...
But it *is* a valid translation in almost all cases. There are
occasionally times when {-vaD jIjeS} seems more appropriate, but we
sometimes just have to assume a thing and run with it. It would be
convenient if {jeS} took the thing participated in as its object, but there
aren't really any hints of that being the case.
>By the way I don't like the way SarrIS expresses his opinion.
>About one and a half year ago he, then charghwI', was extremely
>rude to me when I, then nuvnov, talked about a very delicated
>subject about me.
>
>roj!
>(mu'vam mIgh vIlo' jay')
wejpuH. roj DaneHbej'a'? 'oy' ngo' DaqawmoHmo', DaH bIrojHa'taH SoH.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh