tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 26 16:36:21 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Refining our ideas on indirect objects

ghItlh SuStel
>There is one problem with all of this which gives me cause for alarm. 
Suppose 
>one says
>
>       jIHvaD lI' De'vam
>       This information is useful to me.
>
>Couldn't one say instead {mulI' De'vam}?  What's stopping this?  I just
don't 
>think this is supposed to work like this.

Here's an way to encompass this: {-vaD} isn't exactly like "for," and it
isn't exactly like "to."  It's a little bit of both.  Now the loose use of
the verb prefixes is mostly just the form "to."  Therefore, "jIHvaD"
doesn't always equal {mu-} exactly.
Qapla'
qoror

Back to archive top level