[tlhIngan Hol] Transitivity of qID

Will Martin willmartin2 at mac.com
Wed May 8 07:21:11 PDT 2019


Okrand has consistently avoided using the words “transitive” or “intransitive”. He didn’t mark this sort of thing in TKD. 

It’s long been a frustration for me because I honestly believe that you can’t understand a verb well until you know its relationship with acceptable direct objects. The relationship between the verb and its direct object is part of the meaning of the verb, and most of the time, this is part of the definition of verbs that we don’t get from Okrand. We just have to watch for it in canon, and even then, it’s not always consistent.

SuStel has long made this point from a different angle, and I’ve agued in favor of some kind of clarified, systematic approach, while he’s tended to defend a looser acceptance of a wider range of possibilities in terms of objects of verbs. Over time, I’ve worn down and just accept that we just do the best we can.

Maybe {qID} can use {‘e’} as its direct object. If you don’t like that, then you can treat it like one of the verbs that almost makes it to the list of speech words, but doesn’t quite. {qID Qanqor. jatlh <peng baHmeH qarDaSngan ‘ar poQlu’?>}

I’m guessing that when Okrand includes an explicit noun in the gloss, it probably is similar to English verbs that have an implied direct object that can be stated explicitly, but doesn’t really need to. A moon orbits. What does it orbit. Well, it orbits a planet. That’s what makes it a moon. A moon doesn’t orbit a star. It would be a planet, if it did that.

My spider sense tells me that someone is going to object to something I’ve said here.

Don’t think. Just click “Send”. Someone will be amused by the exchange.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On May 8, 2019, at 5:19 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Am 08.05.2019 um 10:30 schrieb De'vID:
>> This is contradicted [...]
>> Another similar example, {tlhevjaQ wob}, is in KGT (where {wob} is
>> defined as "hurl a spear by means of a {chetvI'}"). OTOH {baH} is "fire
>> (torpedo, rocket, missile)"
> 
> It seems like Okrand is not really consistent with this, so my argument
> does not have much weight indeed.
> 
>> This is why Okrand always says "generally", "usually", "normally",
> 
> Yes, that's what I also said in a different thread.
> 
>> The reason may be as simple as that Power Klingon came out in 1993, and
>> Okrand didn't make up {qID} [...] KGT in 1997.
> 
> Ah,. sorry, I messed that up. Thought it was older.
> 
> 
> --
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
> http://www.klingonisch.de
> http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Jokes
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190508/838d60e8/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list