[112084] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Does Da necessarily require an object ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Wed Mar 6 12:04:25 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:04:21 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmPXUH0X2W5uSD7+xSDz4mrWbpD6-_B5O3R3vPFD_e1J-w@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============4117251240200155664==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------88DE0249E5706A8448ACE075"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------88DE0249E5706A8448ACE075
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 3/6/2019 11:29 AM, De'vID wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 17:02, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name
> <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
> And this is not murky territory in Klingon. It's explained to us,
> it's demonstrated for us, and it's used all the time in canon. It
> was settled before anybody thought to ask the question. The only
> thing we don't know for sure is, are there any verbs that /must/
> mention an object? I don't tend to think so.
>
> About a year ago, mayqel asked the same question, but about {rang}
> (and {ngI'} was also brought up in the thread).
>
> There are some verbs which, if you used them without an object, would
> express a meaning which is weird or not quite right or is missing
> something, but that's an issue of semantics, not grammar.
The grammatical difference is that *rang* can take an object (the
thing the subject is responsible for) -- and it would be weird for
it not to have an object -- while *ngoy' *can't.
That's what Okrand said about that. And it sort of answers my question
about finding a transitive-only verb, except when you want an
intransitive alternative you've got a whole new verb you can go to. *Da*
doesn't have that, so it's not quite the same situation.
But, as you say, that's semantics, not syntax. Just because you wouldn't
have a reason to say something doesn't mean it would be considered
grammatically incorrect if you did say it.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------88DE0249E5706A8448ACE075
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/6/2019 11:29 AM, De'vID wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmPXUH0X2W5uSD7+xSDz4mrWbpD6-_B5O3R3vPFD_e1J-w@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 17:02,
SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>And this is not murky territory in Klingon. It's
explained to us, it's demonstrated for us, and it's used
all the time in canon. It was settled before anybody
thought to ask the question. The only thing we don't know
for sure is, are there any verbs that <i>must</i> mention
an object? I don't tend to think so.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
About a year ago, mayqel asked the same question, but about {rang}
(and {ngI'} was also brought up in the thread).
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are some verbs which, if you used them without an
object, would express a meaning which is weird or not quite
right or is missing something, but that's an issue of semantics,
not grammar. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The grammatical difference is that <b>rang</b> can take an
object (the thing the subject is responsible for) -- and it
would be weird for it not to have an object -- while <b>ngoy' </b>can't.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That's what Okrand said about that. And it sort of answers my
question about finding a transitive-only verb, except when you
want an intransitive alternative you've got a whole new verb you
can go to. <b>Da</b> doesn't have that, so it's not quite the
same situation.</p>
<p>But, as you say, that's semantics, not syntax. Just because you
wouldn't have a reason to say something doesn't mean it would be
considered grammatically incorrect if you did say it.<br>
</p>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------88DE0249E5706A8448ACE075--
--===============4117251240200155664==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============4117251240200155664==--
