Do we have canon that says {voQ} is intransitive? I would have thought {qavoQ} "I choke you" to be perfectly acceptable. {bIyepbe'chugh, chaq nIvoQ ngoQmeylIj} "If you are not careful, perhaps your goals with choke you" qurgh On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 1:37 PM mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

..just realized voQ is intransitive

So, instead of bIvoQ'egh, I should have written bIvoQ'eghmoH.

~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Someone may have confused it with {vIQ} “suffocate” which according to qurgh "does not take an object" (qurgh < MO 7/28/2018) and {vIQmoH} ”smother” was also revealed at the qep'a' 2018. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see {voQ} “choke” vs. *{voQmoH} “strangle” – though similarity is not proof of course. -- Voragh ____________________________________________________________________ From: maykel qunenoS: I read in boQwI' that "this verb (voQ) cannot take a direct object", and that "based on the similarity to voQ (v), this appears not to take an object". Both entries are written under {voQ} "choke", but the only source listed is tkd. From: qurgh lungqIj Do we have canon that says {voQ} is intransitive? I would have thought {qavoQ} "I choke you" to be perfectly acceptable. {bIyepbe'chugh, chaq nIvoQ ngoQmeylIj} "If you are not careful, perhaps your goals with choke you" mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: ..just realized voQ is intransitive So, instead of bIvoQ'egh, I should have written bIvoQ'eghmoH.