tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 11 09:54:03 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: transitivity
- From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: transitivity
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:53:45 -0600
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- Thread-index: AcYWzqX0CrMuCJ4ERWumUk190PIiRAACLqfA
> >And what do you do about
> > {yIn} "to live"? Judging
> > from what Okrand has said in previous interviews,
> > {yIn} is underlyingly
> > bivalent, although in practice the "object" of the
> > action is hardly ever
> > expressed. It could be argued that any non-stative
> > verb in Klingon is
> > theoretically able to take an object (including such
> > fundamental
> > "intransitives" as {Qong} and {yIt}).
> >
>
> I don't follow this. When did Okrand say that {yIn}
> is bivalent? Why do you say that any non-stative can
> take an object? For that matter, why do you call
> {Qong}
> a non-stative?
He signed my KGT [tlhIngan yIn DayIn]. I don't remember now what he said
afterwards, but I remember taking it as a hint that this was not completely
grammatical but /could/ be said.
DloraH