tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 20 09:54:37 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC double object verbs
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Marc Ruehlaender wrote:
> but Okrand doesn't distinguish between "indirect objects" in the
> sense of english grammar and any other "beneficiary" of an action.
> For the discussion I was going to start, I found it usefull to extend
> the meaning of "indirect object" in the sense of Klingon grammar
> (which doesn't have one) to all mandatory noun phrases, that are
> neither subject nor object
Hmm, not sure I follow you. Klingon grammar doesn't have a sense of
"indirect object"? I believe it does: TKD 6.8, page 180 (addendum). He
even uses the term "indirect object" to refer to the constituent. Or
perhaps you're arguing that this reference is to the English element, and
not intended to refer directly to the Klingon construction he's describing?
--Holtej