tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 11 08:17:21 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: transitivity

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected])

• From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: transitivity
• Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:17:05 -0800 (PST)
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=zDwT7s76+0w7SPNwOJYtDRpVJpyw6JWpGmxFaJ5egNzrVDk1HBGIE0YoaAm1beP03MtzxicSmY4yvuqeBNGQOYCir1Zffx5scOvdL7Qyad/VMxBTmSxT6bk5wt624SBcIxakhYZ36sU/1t47kHO+noN40YIjq4RgfCLz6Ji0+K4= ;
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

--- [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
> 
> 
> > So, the answer to the question "Is {jISop}
> transitive
> > or 
> > intransitive?" is "Both: {Sop} is always
> semantically
> > bivalent/
> > transitive; but {jISop} is grammatically
> > univalent/intransitive."
> > 
> Another way of saying this is that the second
> semantic argument of 
> grammatically univalent {jISop} is implied, unknown,
> or unimportant.
>

That in fact seems to be the main function of valence
decreasing: to de-emphasize the omitted argument.
 
> lay'tel SIvten
> 

-- ter'eS

• References:
  • Re: transitivity
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: jab (verb)
• Next by Date: Re: walk two miles
• Previous by thread: Re: transitivity
• Next by thread: Re: transitivity
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level