[tlhIngan Hol] verbs necessarily taking objects

Lieven L. Litaer levinius at gmx.de
Fri Feb 2 02:35:30 PST 2018

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 

> 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"

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list