lieven:

> Not necessarily. {DaHjaj DIl 'Iv} "Who is paying tonight" makes 

> sense clearly.

Couldn't though the {DaHjaj DIl 'Iv} actually mean "Who is paying tonight for it" ?

~ nI'ghma

On Feb 2, 2018 12:35, "Lieven L. Litaer" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 02.02.2018 um 11:01 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:

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

Not necessarily. {DaHjaj DIl 'Iv} "Who is paying tonight" makes sense clearly.

Am I right ? Could someone clarify this matter ?

I don't see this as so confusing. In other languages there are also verbs that usually take an object.

Okrand did not say "MUST always" take an object, he just says that it "would be weird not to" have one.

Think of the English verb "love". You can say "I love you" and "I love cookies" - but just saying "I love." seems weird, doesn't it? And I'm sure there are words much weirder to say without object.

--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
http://www.klingonisch.de
http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Transitivity
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org