tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 29 09:04:26 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC double object verbs
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC double object verbs
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 17:58:14 MET
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "d'Armond Speers" at Mar 20, 96 9:56 am
- Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
>
> 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
I meant "Klingon grammar doesn't have an IO.", sorry.
^^^^^
> 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?
>
that's my point, yes.
> --Holtej
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------