tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 26 20:56:17 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: action verbs vs. qualities

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: action verbs vs. qualities
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 22:52:34 -0500
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

ja' "...Paul" <[email protected]>:
>...There's also an ongoing open question about "which verbs are
>transitive and which are intransitive",...
>There is nothing that says you *can't* use an object with some of these
>verbs,...

I think there *is* something that says this.

When TKD introduces verb prefixes, it uses {Qong} as an example verb, with
only "no object" prefixes.  It then says those prefixes are also used when
an object is possible but not present, strongly implying that there are
verbs for which an object is *not* possible, and that {Qong} is such a verb.

-- ghunchu'wI'

References:
- Re: 'eq, paS
  - From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
- Re: action verbs vs. qualities
  - From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
- Re: action verbs vs. qualities
  - From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Re: action verbs vs. qualities
  - From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus
Next by Date: Re: yI- -choH (was core semantic case roles: agent, patient, focus)
Previous by thread: Re: action verbs vs. qualities
Next by thread: Re: action verbs vs. qualities
Index(es):