[tlhIngan Hol] verbs necessarily taking objects

mayqel qunenoS mihkoun at gmail.com
Fri Feb 2 02:40:10 PST 2018


lieven:
> Not necessarily. {DaHjaj DIl 'Iv} "Who is paying tonight" makes
> sense clearly.

Couldn't though the {DaHjaj DIl 'Iv} actually mean "Who is paying tonight
for it" ?

~ nI'ghma

On Feb 2, 2018 12:35, "Lieven L. Litaer" <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:

> Am 02.02.2018 um 11:01 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
>
>> So, this means that there are verbs which must necessarily take an
>> object, right ? Verbs like {rang}, verbs like {DIl}.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. {DaHjaj DIl 'Iv} "Who is paying tonight" makes sense
> clearly.
>
> Am I right ? Could someone clarify this matter ?
>>
>
> I don't see this as so confusing. In other languages there are also verbs
> that usually take an object.
>
> Okrand did not say "MUST always" take an object, he just says that it
> "would be weird not to" have one.
>
> Think of the English verb "love". You can say "I love you" and "I love
> cookies" - but just saying "I love." seems weird, doesn't it? And I'm sure
> there are words much weirder to say without object.
>
> --
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
> http://www.klingonisch.de
> http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Transitivity
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180202/323cb028/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list