tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 08 22:05:14 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions

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

In a message dated 6/8/2007 11:44:42 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> Likely, he wants {tuQ} to be used both transitively and  
> intransitively, but for my nickel, it makes more sense to stick to  
> intransitive so that the -moH glosses make more sense without the  
> icky grammar that apparently bothers more people than just me. The  
> transitive use of {tuQ} simply is not necessary, given we can use  
> {-'e'} to turn what we are tempted to make a direct object into a  
> topic instead. It gives the same meaning without the icky grammar.
> 

But what *is* the intransitive meaning of {tuQ}?  The definition as given is 
"wear (clothes)".  Granted that "clothes" in this case merely helps specify 
which meaning of "wear" applies.  I suspect you are treating the definition as 
if it were "wear clothes", in which case I would have no objection, but that 
isn't what we have.  The definition is "wear", and further, we are told that 
it's the kind of wear that relates to clothes.  That can only be transitive, and 
the object is what one wears, typically clothing.

lay'tel SIvten   </HTML>

Back to archive top level