[tlhIngan Hol] verbs necessarily taking objects

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Fri Feb 2 08:57:07 PST 2018


On 2/2/2018 11:21 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
> So I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that objectless {rang} is 
> out-and-out wrong,

I specifically said it's not out-and-out wrong, though I didn't use that 
phrase. It's still wrong, in the sense that if you said it to someone, 
they'd stop and wonder what the heck you're talking about... oh, okay, I 
get it, that's a funny word you just used there.

It's weird in the same sense that a verb + *-ghach* with no intervening 
suffix is weird. It's wrong, but it's not, strictly speaking, illegal. 
In English /eatation/ is a perfectly well-formed word created from /eat 
+ -ation,///meaning /the process of eating./ But it's not a real word. 
It's wrong, as wrong as *Sopghach* is. But if you wanted to make a point 
and the combination of *Sop* and *-taH* (or /eat/ and /-ation/) made 
that point perfectly, in the right settings you'd go ahead and say it 
anyway.

Well, my understanding is that *rang* without an object is wrong, in the 
sense that while it doesn't actually break any rules, it's just not used 
that way. If you had a particular point to make and an objectless *rang* 
made that point perfectly, in the right settings you'd just go ahead and 
say it anyway, but that doesn't make it any less wrong, or "weird."

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180202/04cd63df/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list