tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 05 17:23:38 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: chenmoH/mojmoH (was Re: Klingon WOTD: cho' (verb))

MorphemeAddict ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol taghwI']

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 11/5/2005 7:12:27 PM Central Standard Time,=20
[email protected] writes:

> ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten, ja':
> >In English "become" is not transitive,
> "I become king", "he became my manager". Looks transitive to me.
> >although it is copular.  What is the difference between "come into=20
> >existence" and
> >"begin to be"?  They seem virtually the same to me.
> Not just "begin to be", but "begin to be X" or "to change into X"=20
> (transitive).=20

In English (in fact, everything except Klingon), "be", "become", "seem",=20
etc., don't take objects, but rather predicate nominatives, linked with the=20
subject by the copula.  In Klingon the closest is the pronoun as verb.

I wouldn't accept {jImoj} as "I become, I come into existence"=20
> (which is what I get from the intransitive sense of the English verb=20
> "become" - you just can't say *"He came into existence my manager").
> Again, I think there may be confusion between "be" (intransitive, =3D "to=20
> exist") and "be" (transitive/copular).=20

"Transitive and "copular" are mutually exclusive.  If it's one, it can't als=
be the other.

Copulas (copul=E6? copuli?) indicate=20

> equivalence, and as such require two things to link.
> QeS la'

lay'tel SIvten

Back to archive top level