[Tlhingan-hol] roj

[De'vID]

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh:
> Why redundantly use the noun {roj} as the direct object of the verb {roj}?

Nobody is suggesting that someone should write {roj roj} when it's
unnecessary. One might also ask, "Why redundantly write {vIlegh jIH}
when {vIlegh} suffices?" Whether something is redundant is a different
question from whether it's allowed.

Why did Okrand redundantly write {noH ghob} when he could've just
written {ghob}?

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh:
> You’ve already given a complete idea with the verb? Why bother using the noun {Hegh} as the direct object of the verb {Hegh}. The verb already tells us all we need to know without a direct object.

For the parallel reason that one might write the following: {tlhIngan
yIn DayIn}. This sentence was composed by Marc Okrand.

I've also heard him assent to {Hegh} being used in a similar manner. I
used the "honorable death" example because my recollection is that
that was the phrase he assented to. I know that there are better ways
to phrase that particular sentence, such as with the adverbial
{batlh}. But my understanding is that {Hegh} could take, say, "a
Klingon death", "a warrior's death", "a leader's death", "a useless
death", and so on, as its objects. I understand that what Marc Okrand
agrees to in a discussion doesn't count as canon because sometimes
he'll agree to things to be polite, or he changes his mind after
thinking about something some more. If you interpret canon to mean
that {Hegh} *cannot* take an object, that's fine, but the example of
{tlhIngan yIn DayIn} at least suggests the possibility that it can.

You seem to think that I have a *preference* that {Hegh} works this
way. I don't. I believe it works this way because that's how I
interpret Marc Okrand's example and some things he's said about the
topic.

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh:
> Why are you so fixated on using the noun form of every verb as the direct object of that verb?

I am not. Why do you believe that I am?

In the case of {Hegh}, I believe it can take {Hegh} as an object
because {yIn} can take {yIn} as an object, and I've heard Okrand
assent to such a usage for {Hegh}.

In the case of {roj} "make peace", the fact that {ghob} "wage war" can
take {noH} "war" as an object suggests to me that "make peace" might
be able to take "peace" (or a derivative, like "truce") as an object.
This may very well be wrong. The original question in this thread was
about whether "Romulans" made sense as the object of {roj}, and I was
just answering the question.

I am not making some sort of general argument about "every verb" as
you seem to believe I am.

-- 
De'vID