tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 22 21:09:44 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - transitivity
ja' ngabwI':
>One effect of {-moH}(N4) when used with verbs of quality is to make the
>verb transitive(?)
The labels "transitive" and "intransitive" aren't necessarily good ones to
use with Klingon verbs. Almost every Klingon verb can be used without an
object, in what would be an intransitive manner in English. Transitivity
is more connected with a verb's usage in a particular sentence than with
the verb itself. However, some verbs don't ever seem to have a valid
transitive usage. Perhaps "capable of having an object" would be a better
description than "transitive" when describing a suffixed verb?
Using that terminology, verbs of quality do not take objects, and neither
do some other ("stative"?) verbs such as {Qong}. The {-moH} suffix does
act to make them capable of taking objects, where the object generally has
the same relationship to the action/quality/state as did the subject of the
original verb without {-moH}. But using {-moH} doesn't *require* a verb to
have an object.
>ex:
>(I know these sentences don't make sense, I'm using them as demos only)
>{jISey} I am excited
>{muSeymoH QImmey} Eggs excite me.
>{Sey} is intransitive (obviously), but is {SeymoH} transitive?
It can certainly be used with an object, but it doesn't have to be. See,
for example, TKW page 196: {SeymoH QeH} "Anger excites."
-- ghunchu'wI'