[Tlhingan-hol] roj

[André Müller]

All the examples De'vID gave would strike me as odd, except for the {vut}
one. We know that {vut} is transitive, because we've seen it used with
direct objects before. For the others, I wouldn't readily accept their
transitive use, based on the (lack of) examples we have. It could work that
way, but using those verbs transitively is rather experimental. I'd see
them as controversial examples, and I'd see {romuluSnganpu' roj
tlhInganpu'} as such, too - politics aside.

But yes, we know that {yIn} can have {yIn} as a direct object. That's
called a "cognate object". In many languages in which 'to die', 'to live',
'to dream' are intransitive, they can actually be transitive with their
derived nouns. I would imagine {Hegh quv Heghpu' ghaH} to be grammatical,
as well.
As for {roj}, I think it's more acceptable for it to take {roj} as an
object, but I'd probably use it just intransitively, because we simply
don't know better.

- André

2015-11-07 13:51 GMT+01:00 De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com>:

> On 7 November 2015 at 13:16, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> > Yes, as you say it's just speculation, either way. I believ that rij can
> NOT
> > take an oject. It's defined as "make peace", so actually the object is
> > inluded already. At least from english point of view, it makes no sense
> > saying "He makes peace something".
>
> Except that the English definitions of verbs often include objects (or
> types of objects) which the verb is allowed to take.
>
> {qID} "make a joke"
> {vulqangan jIH 'e' vIqID} "I joked that I am a Vulcan"
>
> {Qagh} "make an error"
> {jIjatlhHa' 'e' vIQagh} "I made the mistake of misspeaking"
>
> {vIt} "tell the truth"
> {tlhIngan jIH 'e' vIvIt} "I tell the truth that I am Klingon"
>
> {vut} "prepare food, make a beverage"
> {tlhImqach vIvut} "I prepare zilm'kach"
>
> I think it's uncontroversial that the above are allowed. By the same
> reasoning, {roj} "make peace" includes that the object is peace, so it
> follows that it can (or at least might be able to) take {roj} (noun)
> as its object.
>
> {tera'nganpu'vaD tlhInganpu'vaD je 'orghen roj lurojmoH 'orghenganpu'}
>
> > Another question is then, would I say {rojmoHwI'} or {rojwI'}? :-D
>
> I would think that would depend on the volition of the participants.
>
> Chancellor Gorkon would be a {rojwI'}.
>
> The Organians would be {rojmoHwI'}.
>
> --
> De'vID
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151107/50df5996/attachment-0001.html>