On 2/2/2018 11:21 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
So I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that objectless {rang} is out-and-out wrong,
I specifically said it's not out-and-out wrong, though I didn't use that phrase. It's still wrong, in the sense that if you said it to someone, they'd stop and wonder what the heck you're talking about... oh, okay, I get it, that's a funny word you just used there. It's weird in the same sense that a verb + *-ghach* with no intervening suffix is weird. It's wrong, but it's not, strictly speaking, illegal. In English /eatation/ is a perfectly well-formed word created from /eat + -ation,///meaning /the process of eating./ But it's not a real word. It's wrong, as wrong as *Sopghach* is. But if you wanted to make a point and the combination of *Sop* and *-taH* (or /eat/ and /-ation/) made that point perfectly, in the right settings you'd go ahead and say it anyway. Well, my understanding is that *rang* without an object is wrong, in the sense that while it doesn't actually break any rules, it's just not used that way. If you had a particular point to make and an objectless *rang* made that point perfectly, in the right settings you'd just go ahead and say it anyway, but that doesn't make it any less wrong, or "weird." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name