<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 5/8/2019 10:21 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D487C40B-F494-496B-8910-B1724870CA28@mac.com">
<div class="">Okrand has consistently avoided using the words
“transitive” or “intransitive”. He didn’t mark this sort of
thing in TKD. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's usually not so simple. English verbs, for instance, usually
have both transitive and intransitive senses. What we don't get in
<i>The Klingon Dictionary</i> are senses.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D487C40B-F494-496B-8910-B1724870CA28@mac.com">
<div class="">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.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>More than that: we have to try to understand all the arguments of
a verb. Sometimes it's not clear what the <i>subject</i> of a
verb should be, let alone any objects.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D487C40B-F494-496B-8910-B1724870CA28@mac.com">
<div class="">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.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I find it amusing that most people think I'm the uber-strict,
slippery-slope-ignoring grammar police, while you think I'm a
hippy-dippy grammar defiler.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D487C40B-F494-496B-8910-B1724870CA28@mac.com">
<div class="">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’?>}</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I hadn't considered <b>'e'</b> or <b>net </b>as the object of
<b>qID,</b> but once De'vID suggested it, it made sense.</p>
<p>Another verb that I think really only works with an <b>'e'</b>
or <b>net</b> object is <b>Hech</b><i> intend, mean to.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D487C40B-F494-496B-8910-B1724870CA28@mac.com">
<div class="">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.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Whenever Okrand is writing for a word-list, as opposed to
conversationally explaining a word, he includes an explicit noun
on a verb where the English translation has more than once sense,
and he's disambiguating which sense he means.</p>
<p><b>baH</b><i> fire (torpedo, rocket, missile)</i> — as opposed to
fire someone from their job or fire a kiln.<br>
<b>bIv</b> <i>break (rules)</i> — as opposed to breaking a piece
of glass.<br>
<b>cha'</b><i> show, display (picture)</i> — as opposed to showing
or displaying a statue in a gallery.<br>
<b>chIp</b><i> cut, trim (hair)</i> — as opposed to cutting other
things like meat or wood.<br>
<b>chu'</b> <i>engage, activate (a device)</i> — not sure about
this one, maybe it's to distinguish <i>engage</i> from something
like engaging in conversation. Activate has other senses, but
they're too esoteric to have needed disambiguation.<br>
<b>Dan</b><i> occupy (military term)</i> — as opposed to being
inside something. No one would misunderstand "military term" as
being the object of <b>Dan.<br>
ghoS</b> one of the translations is <i>follow (a course)</i> —
as opposed to following someone into the Great Barrier.<br>
<b>He'</b><i> smell, emit odor</i> — as opposed to emitting sounds
or exhaust. This one doesn't even bother with parentheses, because
the main sense of the word comes from <i>odor,</i> not <i>emit.</i></p>
<p>And so on.<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>