tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 20 00:06:34 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qacheghlu'
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qacheghlu'
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:04:31 -0800
At 11:11 98-03-17 -0800, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
}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.
Indeed. {-vaD} *can* denote an idirect object, but doesn't necessarily.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian