tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 18 19:11:00 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: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 22:12:29 -0500
HomDoq writes:
>> 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".
TKD 6.8 (in the Addendum) uses the term "indirect object" in exactly
the way I have been discussing it. I don't see a need to invoke any
other meaning, especially one which only you are giving it.
>> A direct object is the thing which receives the action of a
>> transitive verb.
>in English - yes; in Klingon - maybe
Okay, TKD just calls it "the object." I used the term "direct object"
to distinguish it from the "indirect object" identified in TKD 6.8.
>> Time stamps and locatives are not objects of either sort.
>again, that's only a definition:...
True, but it's a definition given at the beginning of TKD 3.3.5:
"...in Klingon, nouns which indicate something other than subject
or object usually must have some special indication of exactly what
their function is." These nouns are marked with Type 5 suffixes,
such as {-Daq} (locative). The Addendum section 6.7 indicates that
time elements also are not objects.
>...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
I don't understand what you mean. What "necessary" locatives are you
referring to? In the discussion of the locative suffix {-Daq} (section
3.3.5) we are told that "There are a few verbs whose meanings include
locative notions.... The locative suffix need not be used on nouns which
are the objects of such verbs." I don't see this meaning that the verb
"demands" a locative in the sentence. We can say either {Duj vIghoS}
or {DujDaq jIghoS}. {Duj} is the object, not a locative, in the first
sentence; there is a locative but no object in the second one.
>> The word immediately before {nob} should *always* be the gift.
>except when it is not stated explicitly :-)
Yep. There's *always* an exception to the use of the word "always." :-)
>...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.
Here's one that I hope you agree makes sense: "Cows give milk."
Stretch a bit, and you'll probably agree that there are many ways to use
the word "give" without needing to consider both a gift and a recipient:
"Santa Claus gives toys." "Robin Hood gave to the poor." The missing
objects aren't simply implicit in my meaning, they are totally omitted.
> So do you read
>paq vInob = vay'vaD paq vInob
>as "I gave the book TO SOMEONE"?
No, I don't read it that way. Without a stated indirect object, an aspect
suffix, or other context, I read it as "I give a book" or "I give the book."
It might also easily mean "I give books." I imagine a librarian, or maybe
someone who hands out free copies of a publication. If you had previously
mentioned another person who might be a reasonable recipient, I would be
inclined to consider that you actually did or will give the book to that
person, but seeing the words by themselves I don't get any such impression.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj