tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 17 19:15:08 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pongwIj
On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Marc Ruehlaender wrote:
> just to see if I get this right:
> let us call the object of a klingon verb which
> is indicated by the verbs prefix "direct", all others
> "indirect", then english sentences of the form
>
> subject gives recipient (ind. obj.) gift (dir. obj.)
>
> may be translated as either
>
> gift (ind. obj.) recipient (dir. obj.) x-nob subject
> recipient-vaD (ind. obj.) gift (dir. obj.) y-nob subject
>
> where x and y denote the prefixes
> (subject-him) and (subject-it) resp.
> which happen to be the same.
Exactly. As you've noticed, the distinction between indirect object and
direct object seems to be blurred in Klingon. Capt. Krankor wrote an
essay on this in HolQeD.
> vIQIjlaw'a' neH qoj vIQIjchu''a'
DaQIjchu'.
> "Dochlangan" Marc
yoDtargh