[102007] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] roj
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?=)
Sat Nov 7 09:40:47 2015
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmN8h+3cG_4qyUmuMcB3m-UF28P1BDzQ=c0DagiczL99kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 15:40:29 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?= <esperantist@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============5350269097651864497==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11401d5470862b0523f457db
--001a11401d5470862b0523f457db
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All the examples De'vID gave would strike me as odd, except for the {vut}
one. We know that {vut} is transitive, because we've seen it used with
direct objects before. For the others, I wouldn't readily accept their
transitive use, based on the (lack of) examples we have. It could work that
way, but using those verbs transitively is rather experimental. I'd see
them as controversial examples, and I'd see {romuluSnganpu' roj
tlhInganpu'} as such, too - politics aside.
But yes, we know that {yIn} can have {yIn} as a direct object. That's
called a "cognate object". In many languages in which 'to die', 'to live',
'to dream' are intransitive, they can actually be transitive with their
derived nouns. I would imagine {Hegh quv Heghpu' ghaH} to be grammatical,
as well.
As for {roj}, I think it's more acceptable for it to take {roj} as an
object, but I'd probably use it just intransitively, because we simply
don't know better.
- Andr=C3=A9
2015-11-07 13:51 GMT+01:00 De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>:
> On 7 November 2015 at 13:16, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Yes, as you say it's just speculation, either way. I believ that rij ca=
n
> NOT
> > take an oject. It's defined as "make peace", so actually the object is
> > inluded already. At least from english point of view, it makes no sense
> > saying "He makes peace something".
>
> Except that the English definitions of verbs often include objects (or
> types of objects) which the verb is allowed to take.
>
> {qID} "make a joke"
> {vulqangan jIH 'e' vIqID} "I joked that I am a Vulcan"
>
> {Qagh} "make an error"
> {jIjatlhHa' 'e' vIQagh} "I made the mistake of misspeaking"
>
> {vIt} "tell the truth"
> {tlhIngan jIH 'e' vIvIt} "I tell the truth that I am Klingon"
>
> {vut} "prepare food, make a beverage"
> {tlhImqach vIvut} "I prepare zilm'kach"
>
> I think it's uncontroversial that the above are allowed. By the same
> reasoning, {roj} "make peace" includes that the object is peace, so it
> follows that it can (or at least might be able to) take {roj} (noun)
> as its object.
>
> {tera'nganpu'vaD tlhInganpu'vaD je 'orghen roj lurojmoH 'orghenganpu'}
>
> > Another question is then, would I say {rojmoHwI'} or {rojwI'}? :-D
>
> I would think that would depend on the volition of the participants.
>
> Chancellor Gorkon would be a {rojwI'}.
>
> The Organians would be {rojmoHwI'}.
>
> --
> De'vID
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
--001a11401d5470862b0523f457db
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>All the examples De'vID gave would stri=
ke me as odd, except for the {vut} one. We know that {vut} is transitive, b=
ecause we've seen it used with direct objects before. For the others, I=
wouldn't readily accept their transitive use, based on the (lack of) e=
xamples we have. It could work that way, but using those verbs transitively=
is rather experimental. I'd see them as controversial examples, and I&=
#39;d see {romuluSnganpu' roj tlhInganpu'} as such, too - politics =
aside.<br><br></div>But yes, we know that {yIn} can have {yIn} as a direct =
object. That's called a "cognate object". In many languages i=
n which 'to die', 'to live', 'to dream' are intrans=
itive, they can actually be transitive with their derived nouns. I would im=
agine {Hegh quv Heghpu' ghaH} to be grammatical, as well.<br></div>As f=
or {roj}, I think it's more acceptable for it to take {roj} as an objec=
t, but I'd probably use it just intransitively, because we simply don&#=
39;t know better.<br><br></div>- Andr=C3=A9<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_ex=
tra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-11-07 13:51 GMT+01:00 De'vID <=
span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" target=3D"_=
blank">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left=
:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 7 November 2015 at 13:16, Lieven <<a href=3D"m=
ailto:levinius@gmx.de">levinius@gmx.de</a>> wrote:<br>
> Yes, as you say it's just speculation, either way. I believ that r=
ij can NOT<br>
> take an oject. It's defined as "make peace", so actually=
the object is<br>
> inluded already. At least from english point of view, it makes no sens=
e<br>
> saying "He makes peace something".<br>
<br>
</span>Except that the English definitions of verbs often include objects (=
or<br>
types of objects) which the verb is allowed to take.<br>
<br>
{qID} "make a joke"<br>
{vulqangan jIH 'e' vIqID} "I joked that I am a Vulcan"<br=
>
<br>
{Qagh} "make an error"<br>
{jIjatlhHa' 'e' vIQagh} "I made the mistake of misspeaking=
"<br>
<br>
{vIt} "tell the truth"<br>
{tlhIngan jIH 'e' vIvIt} "I tell the truth that I am Klingon&q=
uot;<br>
<br>
{vut} "prepare food, make a beverage"<br>
{tlhImqach vIvut} "I prepare zilm'kach"<br>
<br>
I think it's uncontroversial that the above are allowed. By the same<br=
>
reasoning, {roj} "make peace" includes that the object is peace, =
so it<br>
follows that it can (or at least might be able to) take {roj} (noun)<br>
as its object.<br>
<br>
{tera'nganpu'vaD tlhInganpu'vaD je 'orghen roj lurojmoH =
9;orghenganpu'}<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
> Another question is then, would I say {rojmoHwI'} or {rojwI'}?=
:-D<br>
<br>
</span>I would think that would depend on the volition of the participants.=
<br>
<br>
Chancellor Gorkon would be a {rojwI'}.<br>
<br>
The Organians would be {rojmoHwI'}.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
De'vID<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" rel=3D"norefe=
rrer" target=3D"_blank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</=
a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11401d5470862b0523f457db--
--===============5350269097651864497==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============5350269097651864497==--
