[886] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re[2]: "movie"mey, etc. (was: RE: RESENT: Bounced Mail III)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri May 14 20:27:35 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Mark_Nudelman@go.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: 14 May 93 14:51
jach HoD Qanqor:
>But as far as what we know about Klingon, there is no basis for
>claiming that any verb cannot take an object-bearing prefix. There
>is absolutely no sentence you can point to anywhere in the
>dictionary that says it is illegal to put an object-bearing prefix
>on any specific verb. Granted, it is not clear in some cases what,
>if anything, some combinations might mean, but it is not ipso facto
>illegal.
Well, actually, that was the impression I got from p.33:
"The verb Qong _sleep_ occurs with the pronominal
prefixes as follows:" (jIQong, bIQong, etc.)
I took this to mean that Qong ALWAYS occurs with the
no-object prefixes.
To me, it doesn't matter much whether vIQong is
ungrammatical or just nonsensical. As Krankor points out,
no one would say it either way. I think the most important
point is that whether or not Klingon has intransitive verbs,
we don't know which ones they are. So until we get further
information from Okrand or a Klingon, the point is moot.
--nachHegh
Mark_Nudelman@go.com
