<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/6/2019 10:31 AM, Jeffrey Clark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A74A9B62-0865-4013-8E3C-AC6E6F0A46A7@gmail.com">I would
argue that from a logical/semantic standpoint, “understand” has no
real intransitive meaning.</blockquote>
<p>What is "intransitive meaning"? <i>Intransitive</i> is a
syntactic property that means the verb has no object. If you look
up <i>understand</i> in a dictionary, you will find both
transitive and intransitive senses. It just means it has no direct
object.</p>
<p>Logically, when one understands, one understands <i>something.</i>
But grammar isn't about logic; it's about rules of communication.
The rules say that if you don't mention the thing being acted
upon, the verb is considered intransitive, and there's no problem
doing this.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A74A9B62-0865-4013-8E3C-AC6E6F0A46A7@gmail.com"> The
intransitive use is simply a shorthand for an implied transitive
meaning. While “I understand” might an intransitive use
syntactically, the actual idea being communicated by the statement
is “I understand this thing/concept/abstraction/whatever”, which
is a transitive concept.</blockquote>
<p>This is not how the grammars of English or Klingon work. Concepts
are not transitive or intransitive; verbs are.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A74A9B62-0865-4013-8E3C-AC6E6F0A46A7@gmail.com">
<div>It seems to me that there is no reason for Klingon to follow
the syntactic shorthand that English does of “intranstivising”
transitive verbs as a shorthand. {jIyaj} doesn’t save any time
to say over {vIyaj}, and {vIyaj} is more semantically accurate —
since there is an “it” that is being understood.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Using verbs intransitively is not just about shorthand or saving
time. It lets us say things that are more general than a specific
object would allow. We don't have to know or mention what we're
understanding or paying attention to or killing or eating or
singing in order to do those things.</p>
<p>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 <i>must</i>
mention an object? I don't tend to think so.</p>
<p>Here's a possible scenario for an object-less <b>Da.</b> The
captain likes his officers to show the right attitude on the
job...<br>
</p>
<p>K1: <b>QuchwI' vIDataH, yoHwI' DataH torgh, 'ej SeywI' DataH
matlh.<br>
</b>K2: <b>maj. yonba' HoD.<br>
</b>K1: <b>maDataH ghorgh 'e' wImevlaH?<br>
</b>K2:<b> peDataH! SuDataH 'e' yImevQo'! pup yaSpu'Daj 'e' poQ
HoD.</b><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>