tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 26 10:12:49 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

KLBC: Short and Easy [James] [Not so short and easy]

In article <[email protected]>, "William H.
Martin" <[email protected]> writes
>> Which seems to fit with Okrand's usage of direct and indirect objects in
>> KGT (like latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr vIqang - I (subject) pour the cold
>> bloodwine (object) into another glass (indirect object, I think)).
>
>It really helps to cite page numbers so we can look up the 
>larger context in examples like this. Anyway, {latlh HIVje'Daq} 
>is not an indirect object. It is a locative. It simply tells you 
>where the action of the verb occurs.

First of all, apologies for my appaling example but it was the best I
could think of at the time.  Anyway, what is the difference between:

I pour the cold bloodwine into another glass

and

I give the ball to you

(Besides subject matter)

Subject - verb - object - preposition - indirect object

I'm not a grammarian but I thought it was an indirect object if there
was a preposition (from the FAQ):

<<One point of confusion for beginners is that Klingon does not seem to
always distinguish between direct objects and indirect objects. For
those not currently studying grammar in any language, in the sentence,
"I give the ball to you,", "I" is the subject, "give" is the verb,
"ball" is the direct object and "you" is the indirect object. You can
recognize the indirect object because of the preposition "to" in front
of it. >>

Notice the last sentence which would indicate that "into another glass"
would be an example of an indirect object following a preposition (and
into *is* a preposition - I checked the dictionary).

And as for the reference for the quote:

>latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr vIqang

Try KGT, in the idioms section, p. 118

latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIqang! ("Pour the cold bloodwine into
another glass" - idiom for "I don't believe you, someone else might")

It's later varied (bottom of the page) as:
lalth HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr vIqang ("I pour the cold bloodwine into
another glass" which would be interpreted literally as that, maybe as a
comment on the food)

Now, I think that qualifies as a canon usage of indirect objects.  If it
isn't, what exactly is "into another glass".  IMHO, It's not locative
(in the sense of that it doesn't tell you where it happened - it's not
like saying "We had a picnic near the river" because the other glass is
actually being utilised.  You could split up "We had a picnic near the
river" (my example of locative) into two separate sentences - "We were
near the river.  We had a picnic."  How do I separate "I pour it into
another glass" into two sentences.  Well, "I pour it" could be one
sentence.  The other sentence would have to be "It was poured into
another glass" which would be a use of an indirect object in the same
sort of way as "I went to school" - school isn't the direct object, it's
the indirect object.  It's just that we haven't, before, been able to
combine the two.  And AFAIK there is no way, in Klingon, of translating
the second sentence into the passive voice.  

Let's see, stepping outside the realms of the Klingon Language, I'll run
to French to prove my point:

Yannick Noah achete des chocolates
complement d'object direct (COD): des chocolats

The first sentence means: Yannick Noah buys some chocolates
The second means: the direct object is some chocolates

Yannick Noah les offre a ses enfants
complement d'objet indirect (COI): a ses enfants

The first sentence means: Y.N. offers them to his children
The second means: indirect object is to his children

So, I pour it into another glass would have a subject of I, a verb of
pour, a direct object of it, a preposition of into and an indirect
object of another glass.

So do we now have an example, in canon, of how to combine direct and
indirect objects in one sentence?

-- 
tlhIbwI'

Back to archive top level