tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 14 23:54:16 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC-double-object verbs
>
> If you're going to call something a "direct object", you should
> use the accepted linguistic definition.
that's why I put the terms "indirect object" and "the"
in quotation marks: to indicate that I had given them
a meaning, different from the one in English. I needed
a definition, which is more applicable to the Klingon
sentence with only one object and "chuvDIp".
> A direct object is the thing which receives the action of a
> transitive verb.
in English - yes; in Klingon - maybe
> Time stamps and locatives are not objects of either sort.
again, that's only a definition: if a verb demands that a
locative appear in the sentence, that locative sure acts as
an object to that verb - Klingon doesn't distinguish between
"necessary" and "optional" locatives
> >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.
except when it is not stated explicitly :-)
> >thus ghaHvaD yInob = give it to him = 'oH yInob
> >
> 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.
>
right, I agree; however, a sentence with "nob" doesn't make
much sense to me, unless a giver, a gift AND a recipient are
either explicitly or implicitly mentioned. So do you read
paq vInob = vay'vaD paq vInob
as "I gave the book TO SOMEONE"?
HomDoq
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------