[Tlhingan-hol] Newbie question about vIneHbogh construction

[Felix Malmenbeck]

A good point. I long refused to use nouns as the object of «neH» because that doesn't work in my native language, but there is canon to support it, and many other examples exist.

Of course, every now and then MO seems to deliberately deviate from English patterns, so there are many cases where it helps to be bilingual. For example, Swedish distinguishes between "fråga" and "be" in much the same way Klingon distinguishes between «ghel» and «tlhob», and between "spela" and "leka" in much the way in much the same way Klingon does between «Quj» and «reH».

The question of what is the correct subject/object of what is one of the more frustrating issues we must face as jatlhwI'pu', but I feel it's also one of the most enjoyable, as it forces one to really think about language. Some of my favorite discussions have been those surrounding what one can ghaj, whether a jaj can be Quch and - of course - our beloved QAO.
________________________________________
From: Robyn Stewart [robyn at flyingstart.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 18:36
To: tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Newbie question about vIneHbogh construction

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


_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol