[Tlhingan-hol] roj

[De'vID]

De'vID:
>> Except that the English definitions of verbs often include objects (or
>> types of objects) which the verb is allowed to take.

Quvar:
> Only because it's part of the explaining definition, it does not mean that
> this is what the object can be.
>
>> {qID} "make a joke"
>> {vulqangan jIH 'e' vIqID} "I joked that I am a Vulcan"

I've gone over my notes from qepHom 2011 again, so I have a clearer
idea of the position I'm taking. At that qepHom, Okrand said a bunch
of things about what verbs take what objects. I'm paraphrasing the
idea, but basically, if you have a verb that you can write "[verb]
that [sentence]" in English and it makes sense, you can (usually,
normally) write /{mu'tlhegh} 'e' {wot}/ in Klingon.

One of the words that he used to illustrate this was {ghet}. You can
say {vulqangan jIH 'e' vIghet}. He used some other examples, and other
people proposed other examples, and I didn't write them down because I
thought at the time that they were obvious applications of what he
said, which is kind of annoying now because I realise that what I
consider obvious isn't necessarily considered obvious by others. But I
think they were verbs like "know", "proclaim", "verify", "promise",
and so forth. In other words, verbs where it clearly (I thought at the
time) made sense to use {'e'} as an object.

However, not all verbs can (usually, normally) take {'e'} as an
object, and Okrand gave {Quj} and {reH} as counterexamples. (I think
{ghet}, {Quj}, and {reH} were in the qepHom booklet? Otherwise, I
don't know why they figure so prominently in my notes.) loghaD
suggested {SuvwI' ghaH 'e' reH puq}. Okrand rejected this because,
while "the child pretended that she is a warrior" works, "the child
played [in the sense of an unstructured game] that she is a warrior"
doesn't. loghaD modified his sentence to {SuvwI' ghaH 'e' ghet puq,
reHtaHvIS}, which Okrand accepted.

{qID} follows the pattern of a verb where it's possible to form
"[verb] that [sentence]" like {ghet}. "I joked that...", "I made a
joke that...", "I told a joke that...". I believe that this applies to
{nep}, {vIt}, and some other verbs, too. You can "pretend that you are
a warrior", and you can "lie that you are a warrior", and so on. In
particular, Okrand confirmed {Qoch} "disagree" as working this way
when loghaD suggested it.

Quvar:
> With this theory, I may be allowed to say {lut tlhaQ vIqID}?

Okrand distinguished between verbs that can take {'e'} and those that
can take other objects. For a verb defined as "[verb] a [noun]", the
object has to be a thing of type "[noun]". You can say {HaqwI' jIH 'e'
vIghet}, and you can say {Monopoly vIQuj}, but you can't say *{HaqwI'
vIghet}. Just because a verb can take {'e'} as its object doesn't mean
it can take any (other) noun, and vice versa.

But I'm not sure about your example. Following {Quj vIQuj}, I would
accept {qID vIqID}, and if {lut tlhaQ} is considered a type of {qID},
then {lut tlhaQ vIqID} should be possible. But it's not as clear to me
as using {'e'} as the object of {qID}.

De'vID:
>> {Qagh} "make an error"
>> {jIjatlhHa' 'e' vIQagh} "I made the mistake of misspeaking"

Actually, looking at the definition of {Qagh} now, I retract this. I
thought the definition was "make an error", but it's actually "err, be
mistaken, make a mistake". So it doesn't follow the pattern.

De'vID:
>> {vIt} "tell the truth"
>> {tlhIngan jIH 'e' vIvIt} "I tell the truth that I am Klingon"

Quvar:
> {vIt vIvIt} "I tell the truth" ?
> {lut vIvIt} "I tell the truth of this story"?

Yes to the first and probably no to the second.

I base my answer to the first on analogy with {Quj vIQuj}, which as I
understand from Okrand's explanation is grammatical. It sounds weird,
but it follows the pattern.

I don't think the second is possible since a {lut} is not a type of
{vIt}. It may be possible in poetry or something like that.

De'vID:
>> {vut} "prepare food, make a beverage"
>> {tlhImqach vIvut} "I prepare zilm'kach"

Quvar:
> This, on the other hand, is not so controversal. The definition is "prepare,
> mix, assemble", an dit is explained it's about food.

But if you had nothing to go on but the gloss given above?

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

Do these all sound wrong? They all sound like the same type of
sentence to me, in both English and Klingon:
"She pretends that she is a warrior."
"He lies that he is a warrior."
"They tell the truth that they are warriors."
"I swear that I am a warrior."
"They disagree that you are a warrior."

What about these?
"She played a game." {Quj}
"She played a game of Monopoly." {Monopoly Quj}
"He made a beverage." {vut}
"He made a root beer." {'awje' vut}
"The Organians made peace." {roj 'orghengan}
"The Organians made the Pax Organa." {'orghen roj roj 'orghengan}

I think the last sentence sounds strange. But I submit to you that
sounding strange is not incompatible with being grammatical in
Klingon.

-- 
De'vID