tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 18 07:46:18 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: use of DIng

Terrence Donnelly ( [KLI Member]

I'm tending to think you are right on philosophical grounds: since Klingons prefer action, they probably prefer to be the actor rather than the one acted upon, so the simple stem of most verbs would describe the subject as performing (or experiencing) the verb (the intransitive usage), with {-moH} available for when you want to refer to the agency that causes them to undergo the verb (transitive). By that reasoning, for verbs we have no canon for that can go either way in English, my default assumption would be that they are intransitive in Klingon. If my memory wasn't so bad, I'd cite some examples!

-- ter'eS

--- On Fri, 9/18/09, Steven Boozer <> wrote:

> From: Steven Boozer <>
> Subject: RE: use of DIng
> To: "''" <>
> Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 8:30 AM
> ter'eS:
> >> Does anyone recall if we know whether {DIng} is
> transitive or
> >> intransitive? Is the subject the thing turned or
> the person who 
> >> turns the thing?
> lay'tel SIvten:
> >I couldn't find any canon for it. Since merely adding
> {-moH} would 
> >make it the transitive version, I hope it's the
> intransitive meaning.
> >If it's the transitive meaning already, then it's a lot
> harder to 
> >get the intransitive meaning.
> There's no canon for {Ding} "spin" - or {tlhe'} "turn"
> either.  Like lay'SIv, I imagine they both work like
> {jIr} "rotate, twirl" vs. {jIrmoH} "twirl X, cause X to
> rotate".  (The context in KGT p.59-60 was specifically
> about bat'leth movements, but I imagine {jIrmoH} can be used
> for other things as well.)
> -- 
> Voragh             
> Canon Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level