tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 18 19:11:00 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC-double-object verbs

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:
" 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

Back to archive top level