tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 26 16:36:30 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Refining our ideas on indirect objects
- From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
- Subject: Refining our ideas on indirect objects
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:32:59 -0400
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. My guess is that verbs of
quality
>can't use prefixes to indicate indirect objects.
Here's a theory that extends for this: {-vaD} doesn't exactly mean "for",
and it doesn't exactly mean "to". But the loose use of prefixes is mainly
just "to", if translated with a preposition. So, {jIHvaD} and {mu-} don't
have quite the same role in a sentence.
Qapla'
qoror