[2774] in tlhIngan-Hol
po puv bortaS! (translation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Jan 25 15:17:12 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 14:51:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: Nick NICHOLAS's message of Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:32:55 EDT <1994012505
32.7357@krang.vis.mu.OZ.AU>
>From: nsn@vis.mu.OZ.AU (Nick NICHOLAS)
>Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 16:32:55 EDT
>batlh choja', Mark E. Shoulson quv:
>=I'm starting to be less comfortable about cavalier usage of intransitives
>=as adjectives.
>of actives, you mean, surely; the prototypical stative is intransitive.
I meant "intransitives in general, without regard to their stative/active
status". Boils down to about what you said.
>Interesting. I think my linguistic intuition would agree with you too;
>it'd be interesting to go through people's usage and see whether they've
>picked up on this (there's a *lot* of quantitative linguistics waiting
>to be done in Klingon!)
I have formerly been pretty set that "N V" was shorthand for "Vbogh N",
preytty much without regard to the meaning of V. I was not alone in that.
I think we'll find at least some usage of both. (cf. "Doch tlha'" in
Marnen's attribution line that Qanqor disliked).
~mark
