[108718] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] War related expressions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Fri Dec 30 09:20:17 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2c+=nT9kD_g3czkn9U_ddF0iy3SXCxDPM-D9RYWmxKfeUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:20:12 +0100
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
On 30 December 2016 at 15:08, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
> however, the question now arises:
>
> because {Qap} can take an object, we can say {noH wIQap}. but can the {luj}
> take an object as well ? because if it cannot take an object, then we can't
> say {noH wIluj}, and we can only say things like {vanDI' noH, maluj}.
>
> so, can the {luj} take an object ?
noH DalujlaHbe'chugh noH DaQaplaHbe'.
There are many Klingon verbs without canon examples to clarify whether
they can take an object or what the object would be. You just have to
go by the definition, and how similar or related verbs are used. In
the case of {luj}, I don't have any evidence that it takes an object
(maybe someone can find some). But I think it's reasonable to treat it
as parallel to {Qap}, bearing in mind that Maltz can always contradict
this.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
