[tlhIngan Hol] Does Da necessarily require an object ?

[SuStel]

On 3/6/2019 11:29 AM, De'vID wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 17:02, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     And this is not murky territory in Klingon. It's explained to us,
>     it's demonstrated for us, and it's used all the time in canon. It
>     was settled before anybody thought to ask the question. The only
>     thing we don't know for sure is, are there any verbs that /must/
>     mention an object? I don't tend to think so.
>
> About a year ago, mayqel asked the same question, but about {rang} 
> (and {ngI'} was also brought up in the thread).
>
> There are some verbs which, if you used them without an object, would 
> express a meaning which is weird or not quite right or is missing 
> something, but that's an issue of semantics, not grammar.

    The grammatical difference is that *rang* can take an object (the
    thing the subject is responsible for) -- and it would be weird for
    it not to have an object -- while *ngoy' *can't.

That's what Okrand said about that. And it sort of answers my question 
about finding a transitive-only verb, except when you want an 
intransitive alternative you've got a whole new verb you can go to. *Da* 
doesn't have that, so it's not quite the same situation.

But, as you say, that's semantics, not syntax. Just because you wouldn't 
have a reason to say something doesn't mean it would be considered 
grammatically incorrect if you did say it.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190306/6eb8fafb/attachment-0015.htm>