tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 18 20:55:05 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KGT
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KGT
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 23:56:33 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 21:19:53 -0700 (PDT) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> I'm not sure how charghwI' sees this one. I might say something like {yIHvaD
> qaghuHmoH} "I alert you to the tribble." "I cause you to be alerted (to
> things in general), and then apply that to tribbles."
>
> Perhaps charghwI' would see it as {SoHvaD yIH vIghuHmoH} "I
> cause-to-be-alerted-to the tribble. I do this for you."
That second method follows Okrand's example better. The one
caused to be alerted is the indirect object. The thing one is
caused to be alerted to is the direct object. When an
intransitive verb is used, since there is no direct object, the
indirect object slides into the direct object's grammatical
position.
> Either one makes sense, really. However, any time I come across a concept
> like this, I just break it up or recast it.
Well, for me, the first version says, "I alerted the tribble to
your presence."
> qaghuHmoHmo' yIH Dalegh.
That works. And who am I to argue with recasting? {{:)>
> --
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 97621.3
charghwI'