[tlhIngan Hol] verbs necessarily taking objects

[mayqel qunenoS]

I'm only asking because, occasionally there is an inconsistency between the
literal meaning of the klingon sentence, and its english translation.

Was the klingon sentence written with the "Who is paying tonight" meaning
in mind, or was the intended klingon "Tonight who is paying for it*, and
the english was given as "Who is paying tonight" ?

~ nI'ghma

On Feb 2, 2018 12:40 PM, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20180202/1b945200/attachment-0003.htm>