<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/24/2020 4:55 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D6FA4E2B-7F24-44BA-87A8-8BACCFA50FB7@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">Transitivity is a little messy in Klingon.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">We have a few examples, like {vum} which we know is
“intransitive” in the sense that the subject is the thing moving
and if an agent causes something else to move, then {vemmoH
[agent]}. We didn’t get that from canon examples. We got it from
a conversation with Okrand about that specific verb. He doesn’t
talk about most verbs like that, so we have to guess.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think you mean <b>vIH,</b> not <b>vum</b> or <b>vem.</b>
Okrand told us that the intention behind that was <i>be in
motion,</i> not <i>cause something to move.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D6FA4E2B-7F24-44BA-87A8-8BACCFA50FB7@mac.com">
<div class="">Even if we have an example or two of a verb being
used transitively or intransitively, we can’t know for sure if
the non-canon interpretation of canon is wrong if we haven’t had
that explained to us because some verbs get used both ways. We
also know why this is true:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Okrand doesn’t want to mark a verb one way and later
forget and use it the other way, so he doesn’t want to tell us
which way is right so we won’t come back to him and tell him
later that he’s using it wrong.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>How do you know this is his motivation? Are you guessing?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D6FA4E2B-7F24-44BA-87A8-8BACCFA50FB7@mac.com">{ja’} and
{jatlh} has changed over time, for example. Originally, the direct
object of {ja’} was the person spoken to, </blockquote>
<p>No, originally we didn't have an examples of a direct object on <b>ja'</b><b>.</b>
We DID have examples of prefixes on <b>ja',</b> but nowhere did
it tell us that the prefix shown was necessarily a direct object.
It's now quite clear that prefixes don't always agree with a
direct object, and they didn't even when TKD was written.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D6FA4E2B-7F24-44BA-87A8-8BACCFA50FB7@mac.com">and the
direct object of {jatlh} was the language or
noun-representing-words-being-said (like a poem or a speech). It
was a neat difference between the two verbs. Then it got smeared
by canon example, and now, it’s not really obvious that either
verb is wrong for either kind of object.</blockquote>
<p><b>jatlh</b> and <b>ja'</b> never meant the same thing just with
different syntax. <b>jatlh</b> <i>speak, say</i> and <b>ja'</b>
<i>tell, report</i> have different translations. One means
something like "vocalize words," while the other means something
like "impart information." Both can be used the same special way
in sentence-as-object constructions, but that's about the end of
it.<br>
</p>
<p>All we needed was confirmation as to what sort of direct object <b>ja'</b>
could take, and we now have that.<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>