[Tlhingan-hol] roj

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh]

I agree that these sound wrong. Maybe they are fine, but we simply don’t need them.

<<vulqangan jIH>> jIjatlhDI’, jiqIDba’.

jIQagh. jIjatlhHa’.

<<tlhIngan jIH>> jIjatlhDI’ jIvItchu’.

‘orghennganpu’mo’ roj tera’nganpu’, tlhInganpu’.

If we get canon clearly informing us that unintuitive direct objects are proper to use with verbs that have definitions that appear to not take such objects, then we should follow canon, but in the absence of canon, just keep it simple and say it the way more people will understand it.

When a verb is used both ways in English, like {vIH} / “move”, I tend to favor using it without a direct object, and use {-moH} when you want to use a direct object. I’ve done this from the start, and in the case of {vIH}, it was confirmed that I was right, though that makes no guarantee of any consistent pattern in the language.

It would have been just as easy to use {-‘egh} on a verb that normally takes a direct object to indicate the no-object version of its meaning. So, in the end, we really need a pronouncement from Okrand, who shuns the entire “transitive” and “intransitive” terminology, though that appears to be the wording for the feature of the verb we are trying to determine in these cases.

Sometimes the relationships between verbs and appropriate objects is very alien to us, as was the case with {ghoS} and its ilk. We could use more explanations from Okrand about more verbs in terms of appropriate objects.

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably



> On Nov 7, 2015, at 7:51 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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