On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 17:02, SuStel <sustel@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