tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 21 01:15:35 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Qong (was Re: Hech)

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Qong (was Re: Hech)
• Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 20:58:38 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]><[email protected]>

ja' SuStel:
>...but then there's also no grammatical reason why some noun can't be
>the object of, say, /Qong/.  /quS vIQong/ is a grammatical and nonsensical
>sentence.

I find it fascinating that {Qong} is the verb typically chosen for such
examples.  In the introduction to verb prefixes, TKD actually *does* tell
us that some verbs don't take objects -- and it uses {Qong} when saying so!

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Qong (was Re: Hech)
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)
    • From: "Sean Healy" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingonase vs. tlhIngan Hol
• Next by Date: Quch QeH pagh QeH Quch
• Prev by thread: Re: Hech (was: Re: SajwIj)
• Next by thread: Re: Qong (was Re: Hech)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level