tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 31 06:32:02 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: >>bo'deghmey targhmey je<< (more or less; no word for bee in tlhIngan Hol... )
- From: "Raik Lorenz" <[email protected]>
- Subject: KLBC: >>bo'deghmey targhmey je<< (more or less; no word for bee in tlhIngan Hol... )
- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:39:38 +0100 (MET)
There has not yet been a discussion over the following subject matter, as
long as I am on the list and AFAIK, so:
What is the transitivity status of {nga'chuq}?
Is it intransitive, intensive, mono- or ditransitive ... ?
To illustrate it with an example:
The sentence {nga'chuq tlhIngan loD tlhIngan be' je.} is grammatical,
qar'a'?
Would the sentence {tlhIngan be' nga'chuq tlhIngan loD.} be correct, too?
Or would it rather be more grammatical to say {tlhIngan be'vaD nga'chuq
tlhIngan loD.}?
Unfortunately, the Klingon Pocket Dictionary nor any other one does
elaborate on transitivity. The KPD(online at
http://www.klingonska.org/dict/lexicon.cgi?query=nga&field=klin ) only gives
the following account:
Klingon: nga'chuq
Swedish: sex (d.v.s. ha sex; alltid subjekt) (v)
English: sex (i.e. perform sex; always subject) (v)
Source: [HQ1:3 p.9]
Comment: Article in HQ is called "Additional Vocabulary" and contains the
veS QonoS list of words. It is unclear about what part of speech this may
be,
though it is probably a verb and "always subject" probably refers to the
concept that all involved parties collectively make the subject of this
verb.
One might from that alone assume, that {nga'chuq} is an intensive verb like
Engl. >>sleep<<, but - do not get me wrong - It would definitely be a pity
from the semantical point of view! }}:-)
Qapla',
qIn'orIq
--
+++ Mailpower für Multimedia-Begeisterte: http://www.gmx.net/topmail +++
250 MB Mailbox, 1 GB Online-Festplatte, 100 FreeSMS. Jetzt kostenlos testen!