[tlhIngan Hol] verbs necessarily taking objects
sustel at trimboli.name
Fri Feb 2 06:59:18 PST 2018
On 2/2/2018 5:35 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
> 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.
But /weird/ doesn't mean /rare./ There are perfectly understandable
reasons why one might use the verb /love/ without an object: "Oh,
please. Don't let them take me. I can't even touch them! Janice, they
can't feel. Not like you! They don't love!"
I don't think Okrand is saying *rang* is only objectless in rare cases.
/Weird/ means that while there's no actual rule requiring any verb take
an object, *rang* really /needs/ an object to make sense. Same with
*ngI'*, which someone else quoted.
The difference, though, with *rang* versus *ngI'* is that I can easily
understand what *rang* without an object would mean: /be responsible for
things in general;/ while *ngI'* without an object truly is weird: /have
a weight of a general measurement?/ But Okrand says *rang* without an
object is weird, so we must accept that Klingons find it so.
So I think it IS ungrammatical to use *rang* without an object, but it
is ungrammatical SEMANTICALLY, not syntactically. There is no syntactic
rule that says a verb must have an object, but the particular meaning of
*rang* forces it to have an object. To leave off an object is not
syntactically incorrect, but it is still wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol