[Tlhingan-hol] Loose Klingon

[De'vID jonpIn]

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}. Sometimes
> we're given explicit instructions on how to use a verb, but most of the
> time we rely on the semantics of the English translation. Suppose Klingon
> semantics aren't so strict? Suppose you can use any semantic role you like
> as subject or object, so long as context makes it clear what you mean?
> {jIDIng} "I spin," {gho vIDIng} "I spin the circle," {gho vIDIngmoH} "I
> spin the circle." (The difference between the latter two is an explicit
> indication ({-moH}) that the subject is the agent, as opposed to, say, an
> instrument or a force.
>

Where has {mev} been used in the sense of {mevmoH}?

We did ask MO about {DIng} (whether it's transitive and how it differs from
{jIr}/{jIrmoH}) at the qepHom'a' but didnt' get an answer.  (We did get
that {ghur} and {nup} are intransitive though.)

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).  But I don't think the canon contradicts
previous canon, just people's assumptions.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20111129/33aa2892/attachment-0001.html>