tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 20 08:12:36 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC double object verbs
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC double object verbs
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 11:12:34 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from MarcRuehlaender on Wed, 20 Mar 1996 02:23:09 -0800)
>Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 02:23:09 -0800
>From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
>> > 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.
>>
>but the librarian has to give the handouts to someone!
The same could be said about the verb "Sop"; you have to eat SOMEthing,
it's not possible to eat without there being something eaten. But we *can*
use "Sop" intransitively in Klingon (indeed, it's given as an example),
when the object is generic and unimportant. It's not that it's simply
"something"; then we'd say "vay' wISop." In this case it's simply NOT
THERE in the sentence, ellipsized to "in general, eating takes place and
what's eaten really doesn't matter": "maSop." So too here, there has to be
a recipient, yes, but if the recipient has no bearing on the sentence, and
I'm talking about the fact that the teacher is giving things in general,
there is NO indirect object. It's just not there.
~mark