tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 13 19:30:12 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: qacheghlu'

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: qacheghlu'
• Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 22:33:42 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

ja'pu' beHwI"av:
>I'm I
>correct in assuming that {-vo'}, {-vaD} and {-Daq} all denote indirect
>objects?

ja' Qov:
>No.  {-vaD} denotes an indirect object.  The other type 5 noun suffixes have
>differnt meanings.  {-vo'} and {-Daq} are prepositional concepts.   Read
>about them in the relevant sections in the Nouns chapter.

Pardon me for being nit-picky, but {-vaD} marks a beneficiary or recipient
of the verb's action.  It's often appropriate for *translating* an indirect
object in an English sentence.  Its definition doesn't say anything about
indirect objects, and some examples of its use don't fit that interpretation
well.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: qacheghlu'
    • From: Qov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: pay' jIchegh
• Next by Date: Re: Amar Qawlu'
• Prev by thread: Re: qacheghlu'
• Next by thread: Re: qacheghlu'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level