tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 15 00:02:36 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC-double-object verbs



> 
> I think you've made an intuitive leap here that may not have
> substance behind it. A time stamp is not merely a noun with a
> special kind of Type 5 suffix, which happens to be null. The
> only "null" affix Okrand refers to in TKD is the third person
> verbal prefix. All other missing affixes are most likely simply
> missing affixes and not existing affixes represented by empty
> space.
> 
what, exactly, is the difference between a "not existing affix,
represented by empty space" and a null affix?

> While there are no rules or descriptions in TKD to back this
> up, there are several canonical examples of this style use.
> This means that we know that something LIKE Krankor's
> explanation is in force here, but we only see the effects and
> not the cause. Okrand reveals that prefixes are being used for
> indirect objects, but he offers no explanation for the
> grammatical reasoning behind it. It is natural for any
> Klingonist to be confused by this. One can only hope that
> somewhere on one of the upcoming CD sources, Okrand has updated
> his descriptions of the grammar.
> 
I was just hoping, that the theory I presented was compatible
with all canon material - I certainly didn't mean to say,
that it was THE correct explanation, or that one should expand
the language upon this theory. Sorry if that impression was
made.

> The problem is the ambiguity of {yI-}. Your first example can
> easily be a global statement with no direct object: "Give to
> him." The second example would almost certainly be considered
> to have no indirect object. "Give it." I do not see these as
> equivalent.
> 
but "Give to him." and "Give it." are not complete sentences,
are they. What they really mean is something like "Give him
something." or (if "it" was specified earlier in the conversation)
"Give it to him." and "Give it to someone." or "Give it to him."
(if "him" was specified earlier") respectively. I could live
with that ambiguity. And I don't think that the examples I give
are illegally constructed (except that explicit "jIH"). Are they?

				HomDoq

--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender	[email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------


Back to archive top level