tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 13 21:25:40 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC-double-object verbs
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC-double-object verbs
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 00:27:32 -0500
HomDoq writes:
>gulp! so far I thought, it was possible to look at it
>this way: verbs that need several 'objects' (whatever
>they may be called) can have each of it as "the" or
>the "direct" object in Klingon, that is, as the word
>which is referenced by the verb prefix and, if stated
>explicitly, precedes the verb immediately.
If you're going to call something a "direct object", you should
use the accepted linguistic definition. A direct object is the
thing which receives the action of a transitive verb. If you
"drink coffee", "coffee" is the DO. If you "punch a friend",
"friend" is the DO. If you "give a gift", "gift" is the DO.
>All other
>"indirect objects", that is, noun phrases other than
>subject or "the" object, have a type 5 noun suffix
>(which may be zero, e.g. time stamps) and precede the
>object.
Indirect objects aren't defined by their *position* in the
sentence; they're defined by their *role*. Indirect objects
are affected by the action of the verb, but they are not the
thing on which the verb acts. If you "give a gift to me",
"gift" is still the DO; "me" is the indirect object. If you
"give me a gift", nothing changes; "gift" is the DO, "me" is
the IO. You can "feed the prisoner worms"; "worms" is the DO
and "prisoner" is the IO. Time stamps and locatives are not
objects of either sort.
>Thus in
>jIHvaD paq yInob
>
>jIH is the "indirect object", paq is "the" object, while in
Fine...
>paq (jIH) HInob
>
>paq is the "indirect object" with an empty type 5 noun suffix
>and jIH is "the" object, referenced by HI- and usually left
>out, except for emphasis.
Not fine. This use of the term "indirect object" is at odds with
the role of the words in the sentence.
>In the case of "give" you can always tell, whether the word
>before ..nob is the recipient or the gift, by looking at the
>type five suffix it has: -vaD -> recipient, -0 or -'e' -> gift
The word immediately before {nob} should *always* be the gift.
*Nothing* should come between the (direct) object and the verb.
Other things (time stamps, locatives, purpose clauses, and the
{-vaD}-marked "indirect objects") all come *before* the object.
>thus ghaHvaD yInob = give it to him = 'oH yInob
>
>what's wrong with that?
Only the fact that {'oH yInob} doesn't mention "him" at all!
Whether or not you intended {yI-} to mean "you-him", it still
*obviously* means "you-it" with "it" emphasized by {'oH}. If
the stated object and the verb prefix don't disagree, there's
no clue that you want to indicate the indirect object in the
verb prefix.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj