[Tlhingan-hol] Newbie question about vIneHbogh construction

[Robyn Stewart]

Unfortunately that helps Wiechu less than it helps us, because 
lacking native speaker instincts it's also very hard to tell which 
English verbs can take objects. It's like me trying to know which 
prepositions French or Russian words take. Est-ce qu'on apprend a ou 
apprend de quelque chose?

I'm more liberal than SuStel at interpreting possible objects of 
Klingon verbs. If only a preposition is required in English to 
connect the verb to an obvious recipient of the action, I will often 
use with the object in Klingon. Marc doesn't seem to have been 
rigourous with the "wait [for]" style of gloss.  I wouldn't have 
every blinked at {paQDInorgh yIqIm} but I don't try *{ram vIQong} or 
*{QongDaq vIQong}.

At 09:20 26/01/2012, David Trimboli wrote:
>On 1/26/2012 11:51 AM, Wiechu wrote:
>>
>>How do I know which verbs take objects which don't ?
>
>If Marc Okrand has written something using a particular verb with an 
>object, you know.
>
>If he hasn't used a verb, you must base your decision on how the 
>English translation would work. For instance, {QaQ} "be good" can't 
>take a direct object in English. You can't say "I am good the 
>officer." Thus, you can't say {yaS vIQaQ} either. (Most of the "be" 
>verbs can't take objects.)
>
>Sometimes we are wrong. For years I believed {qIm} "pay attention" 
>couldn't take an object, because "pay attention" can't take a direct 
>object in English. You can't "pay attention the officer." Then we 
>got canon from Okrand that included using an object with {qIm}. So 
>now we know that {yaS vIqIm} "I pay attention to the officer" is valid.
>
>--
>SuStel
>http://www.trimboli.name/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol