On 2 February 2018 at 11:01, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

There is something I can't understand, something which I think I had asked sometime ago, but I still have trouble understanding..

There are verbs which can't take an object.

And there are verbs which can take an object..

But are there verbs which always must have an object ?

Grammatically? No. But there are some which would have a weird meaning without an object.

At another thread I read:

'oqranD:
> 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

So, this means that there are verbs which must necessarily take an object, right ? Verbs like {rang}, verbs like {DIl}.

Am I right ? Could someone clarify this matter ?

It's laid out in The Klingon Dictionary, p. 33-34:

<<The prefixes in the first column of the chart (headed "none") are used when there is no object... This set of prefixes is also used when an object is possible, but unknown or vague. Thus, {jIyaj} "I understand" can be used when the speaker understands things in general, knows what is going on, or understands what another speaker has just said. It cannot, however, be used for understanding a language or understanding a person. Similarly, {maSop} "we eat" can be used to indicate a general act of eating, but not if a specific food is mentioned.>>

De'vID