[Tlhingan-hol] roj

[De'vID]

De'vID:
>>> I think it's uncontroversial that the above are allowed.

Quvar:
>> I enjoy having neutral arguments, so I may say that I do not think these are uncontroversial. To me, they sound wrong.

ghunchu'wI':
> I too think they sound wrong. You need to reassess your belief that they are uncontroversial.

I made a mistake in using "uncontroversial". (jIjatlhHa' 'e' vIQagh.
:-) ) But my impression was that people would avoid producing such
constructions, yet accept them when presented with them (i.e., follow
what is called the robustness principle), and apparently I was wrong
about this.

It's interesting that others think those sentences sound wrong. Do
they all sound equally wrong? And how do they compare to {rojHom
luroj} or {Hegh quv Hegh HoD}? Do these two sentences sound equally
wrong as the others? What about {'IqnaH chuy} or {'Iw tuS}?

Do people accept {'e'} as the object of {nep}, {'Ip}, and {lay'}?

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh:
> While it may be true that perhaps {Hegh quv Hegh HoD} could mean “The captain died an honorable death,” you could just as easily have said {batlh Hegh HoD} to convey the same meaning, and likely you’d be understood by more people with less confusion or challenge.

Of all the verbs discussed in this thread, {Hegh} is the only one I
have a strong opinion about that it works this way. I've heard Okrand
accept that it works this way when an example in English was presented
to him.

As for the rest, some of them "sound" wrong to me too. But I'm going
by something that Marc Okrand has said generally about the English
definitions not necessarily corresponding to whether the Klingon verb
is what we would call transitive or not. Of course, his unprepared
remarks during discussions are not canon, and he sometimes gets
confused or changes his mind. But whenever transitivity has come up,
he's been pretty consistent in insisting that the English definitions
don't necessarily indicate what we call transitivity and that it may
be possible to use a verb transitively which by its English definition
looks intransitive.

He has even said this to you during this interview:
http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-12-holqed-07-4.txt

As an illustrative example (my example, not his), English has verbs
for "tell a lie", "make a vow", "make a promise", but not a verb for
"tell the truth". A person putting together a dictionary for which
these are all simple verbs can put down "lie", "vow", and "promise"
for the first three, but must write "tell the truth" for the fourth.
There is, of course, nothing that says a language must be consistent
so that if you can say that "he lied that blah blah blah" then it
necessarily has to allow "he truth-told that blah blah blah". (In
fact, English is a language that does not allow this.) If Klingon had
a verb for "make a speech" the object of which is speeches, we
wouldn't be able to infer from the definition alone whether it took an
object or not.

What is the difference between "make a joke" and "make a beverage"
that makes it unlikely that the first verb takes an object while it is
uncontroversial that the second one can? That's what I'm trying to
determine. (Of course, the reason that the second is uncontroversial
is because we have a section on cooking in KGT while thoroughly
explains Klingon cuisine. But I am talking about the grammar and the
bare dictionary definition only.)

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh:
> You’ve presented an argument. Many have responded suggesting that you are very likely incorrect. You don’t seem to be accepting any of this, but instead restate your original suggestion, repeatedly, without producing any additional evidence or argument to make your point stronger.

The reason I don't accept "the English definition seems to include the
object already" as a reason for believing that the Klingon verb can't
take an object is that Marc Okrand has said that this is an unreliable
guide. The same argument would exclude an object for {ghob} "wage war"
as for {roj} "make peace".

And I'm not sure what it is you think I should be accepting that I
don't accept. I accept that there is no evidence either way until we
receive a canon example, which we are unlikely to do. Beyond that,
people have said only that such sentences "sound" wrong or odd. I
accept that they do. I also think some of those sentences "sound"
wrong myself. But why does "I make-peace a truce" sound wrong while "I
prepare-beverage a root beer" sound right? I want to understand the
difference, and whether there is a stronger case here than intuition.

-- 
De'vID