tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 29 06:40:25 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Using object prefixes with "intransitive" verbs

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

> Perhaps another example (sure to get me into trouble) might be /lIt/ or
> "get on (to)"  Before I get introuble and say this could be likened to
> "board" (for which we already have /tIj/!), I'll just say that this is an
> example where in English, we would use a verb ("get") and an preposition
> ("on"), in Klingon, is a single transitive verb:
>
> "I got on the roof"
> beb vIlItta'
>
> Of course, this is another crappy example, because there's going to be
> discussion about whether or not the locative /-Daq/ is used (although I
> think we have a canon pattern emerging where /-Daq/ is not necessary if
> the verb indicates motion...)

Ooh, if you hadn't suggested that thing about motion, you'd have gotten it
perfect.  It's not that /-Daq/ is not necessary if the verb implies motion.
It's that there are a number of specific verbs whose objects are
automatically locative concepts.  The object of /jaH/, for example, is
always the destination, which is a locative concept.  This isn't some
strange rule about /-Daq/; it's just a mention that the object of certain
verbs are already destinations, so there's no need to include /-Daq/ (though
you can add it if you don't mind being redundant).  In other words, Klingon
locative is not always grammatically indicated, even if it is semantically
present.

You're right about /lIt/, though:

jol SeHlaw lItHa'
Get off that transporter control panel! (Clipped Klingon from Power Klingon)

The object of /lIt/ is the thing you get on.

SuStel
Stardate 4242.6

Back to archive top level