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