[91023] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Loose Klingon
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Tue Nov 29 04:13:21 2011
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:13:06 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmP1RkLM+JO19NZhcCUJgUBA=6jLLHcVZ=0CPT1NWKx1Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
jatlhpu' SuStel:
> The semantic roles of subjects and objects in Klingon seem to change
> all the time. I can {mev}, I can {mev} you, making you you {mev}.
tlhob De'vID, jatlh:
> Where has {mev} been used in the sense of {mevmoH}?
bIjatlh 'e' yImev. yItlhutlh!
Stop talking! Drink! (TKW p.87)
To be honest I don't see these verbs as that much of a problem. Lots of
languages have small and select groups of these kinds of "ambitransitive"
verbs. English, for instance: burn, break, drown, choke, scatter, fly,
boil, fry... Ubykh has them too, so they're not an English-only thing.
They're a little frustrating, but they're absolutely typical of natural
Terran languages and I'm not surprised to see a few such verbs appearing
in Klingon. Whether Marc's doing them deliberately or not is, of course,
another story, but I don't have a problem with them and I think there's
no reason for us to start wondering about the looseness of argument
structure of *all* Klingon verbs as a result.
taH:
> I can't think of any examples where the semantic roles of subjects and
> objects have changed. We recently learned that {vergh} is transitive
> (someone docks something), when some people have assumed it was
> intransitive (the ship docks).
{meQ} "burn" is one, which we have attested with an object, with a non-
agent subject, and as an adjectival.
QeS 'utlh
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
