[110310] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Transitivity of {nay} and {Saw}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mayqel qunenoS)
Fri Aug 4 11:10:10 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <da7e7b84-af7d-a9bc-c6c0-5ea3895431b1@trimboli.name>
From: mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 18:10:07 +0300
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
SuStel:
> allowing -chuq on them cliches it for me.
What does "cliches it for me" mean ?
qunnoq
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 6:02 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 8/4/2017 10:42 AM, Philip Newton wrote:
>
> Is anything known about whether {nay} and {Saw} are transitive and/or
> intransitive, or how they are used?
>
> Specifically, are they "marry" in the sense of "get married"
> (intransitive) or "get married to [person]" (transitive)?
>
> Given http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170713.html and its
> endorsement of the grammaticality of {naychuq} and {Sawchuq} and its
> example of {B tlhogh A}, I assume that {nay} and {Saw} work similarly
> and that one can say {qeylIS nay luqara'} and {luqara' Saw qeylIS}.
>
> Any Klingon verb that can take an object may leave that object off to mean
> either the action is done in general or to an unspecified object. So nay
> luqara' means Lukara marries (in general, or someone unspecified).
>
> I didn't doubt before that those words took objects; allowing -chuq on them
> cliches it for me.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
