tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 01 16:58:13 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The ol' transitivity thing again
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The ol' transitivity thing again
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:58:10 -0400
- References: <[email protected]> <a05100303b9ba7824a905@[216.117.92.142]>
From: "Alan Anderson" <[email protected]>
> ja' SuStel:
> >The most likely situation (to me) is that Klingon does not have an
absolute
> >set of transitivity rules. A word might be used transitively or not.
Some
> >words may not be able to be used transitively. I don't think the choice
of
> >transitivity is inherent in the word.
> >
> >/Qong/ "sleep" is pretty clearly used only intransitively.
>
> That sounds inconsistent. If the word {Qong} doesn't have an inherent
> transitivity, how can you say its use is only intransitive? Or, the other
> way around, since we're rather certain that {Qong} is used only
> intransitively, how can you deny that it has an inherent transitivity?
I didn't say that /Qong/ didn't have an inherent transitivity. I said that
Klingon may not have an absolute set of transitivity rules. There may very
well be a specific word that has a specific set of allowed usages, but these
usages only apply to that particular word.
Basically, I'm calling into question the practice of saying such-and-such
verb "is transitive" or "is intransitive." We can see whether a given verb
is "used transitively" or not, but something makes me feel that the concept
of transitivity in Klingon is less clear-cut than a simple label.
SuStel
Stardate 2751.3