tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 25 15:54:12 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: action verbs vs. qualities

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: action verbs vs. qualities
• Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 17:53:55 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>

ja' QeS lagh:
>I think this might have something to do with a distinction between agent
>(one who causes an action) and patient (one to whom the action is done),
>rather than subject and object. An intransitive verb like {jIQong} has an
>agent. A stative verb like {jIDoq} has only a patient. As I see it, {-ta'}
>refers *only* to sentences that have agents.

I don't see that the distinction you're making between instransitive and
stative verbs is important.  Grammatically, {Qong} and {Doq} are both
verbs.  As with all verbs, the subject of the verb does what the verb
describes.

The terms "agent" and "patient" are undefined in Klingon grammar.  If you
want *me* to accept such jargon the way you're trying to use it, you'll
have to give me compelling evidence that the subject of a verb like {Doq}
is fundamentally different from the subject of a verb like {Qong}.

In order to save time, I will pre-emptively present the concept of blushing.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: action verbs vs. qualities
    • From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: pojwI'
• Next by Date: Re: action verbs vs. qualities
• Previous by thread: Re: action verbs vs. qualities
• Next by thread: Re: action verbs vs. qualities
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level