Re: Qong (was Re: Hech)

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@hotmail.com>]

From: "Alan Anderson" <aranders@netusa1.net>
> 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