tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 14 23:24:17 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Indirect objects?
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Indirect objects?
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
---"Lt. Cdr. Sarah Barrows" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hey, my card from the qep'a' fell out of my TKD and I was
looking at
> it sitting here on the desk. I wondered if it's standard procedure to
> form the alleged indirect object in a sentence this way: /tuQDoq
> mulo'DI'.../, "When they used a mind sifter on me..." I was looking
at
> it and I read just the /mulo'DI'/, which says to me, out of context,
> "He/She/It/They use me".
It's the same question SuStel and I have been bashing about with
HovqIj's /Daq muDel/ and in response to your /qaQoch/.
jIHvaD tuQDoq lulo'DI' - when they used a Tookdock on me ...
We know that /-vaD/ can be used to indicate an indirect object. We
have seen the prefix trick. If all /<noun>-vaD/s are eligible for the
prefix trick, then /tuQDoq mulo'DI'/ is acceptable. I personally hate
it, but many things about the world continue to exist despite my
hatred for them. This may be one of them.
> Uhm. But in context, being that you'd read the
> /tuQDoq/ first, it makes sense as the IO. But then I remembered
> vaguely
> someone saying on the list not terribly long ago that Klingon doesn't
> use indirect objects in the same sense as English does. Or perhaps I'm
> just brain-dead right now. It's entirely possible.
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com