tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 27 19:45:38 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Qong (was Re: Hech)

ja' SuStel:
>I chose /Qong/ precisely because it's the one everybody chooses (and there's
>little question about it).

My fascination isn't with the fact that there's an archetypical example.
It's with the fact that the original example which stuck is {Qong}, the one
word which is singled out by TKD as *not* taking an object.

>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).

Read page 33 carefully.

   ...The verb {Qong} "sleep" occurs with the promonimal
    prefixes as follows: [jI-, bI-, 0, ma-, Su-]...This set
    of prefixes is also used when an object is possible,
    but unknown or vague...

It implies *very* strongly by contrast that the other prefixes, those
indicating an object, are *not* possible on {Qong}.

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level