tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 29 09:04:26 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[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 
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
----------------------------------------------------


Back to archive top level