tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 21 13:13:36 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Qong (was Re: Hech)
From: "Alan Anderson" <[email protected]>
> 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!
It's not fascinating. It's typical of illustrations of language. There are
often some examples that are picked up by a community and used ever after to
illustrate a particular point.
"There are some ghosts . . ."
"the ship in which I fled"
I chose /Qong/ precisely because it's the one everybody chooses (and there's
little question about it).
Also, not taking objects is a lot different than not being ABLE to take
objects. Okrand describes Klingon, he doesn't define it. For /Qong/, he
simply lists the prefixes it takes (not the prefixes it CAN take, though in
actual usage these are the same thing).
Until Okrand writes a prescriptive set of rules for Klingon (something he'll
never do), it's unlikely that we'll be able to say it's ungrammatical to use
anything other than the no-object prefixes for /Qong/. It just doesn't
happen, that's all.
SuStel
Stardate 2058.2