tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 15 22:10:44 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Ordering food

mujang peHruS:
><< {vavwI'vaD HablI' vItI'pu'} doesn't translate easily into an
> English sentence having an indirect object. >>
>OTOH, by all I have learned about English grammar, your sentence IS a perfect
>example of an IO.  "...for my father" is the IO.

vaj jaS pab wIyaj.  I've heard it labeled as an "adject", which is not
the same thing as an "indirect object".  The English verb "repair" has
no customary indirect object.

We often speak of Klingon verb prefixes pointing to indirect objects
in sentences like {tIqwIj Sa'angnIS}, but it's the *English* indirect
object in the sentence's translation we're talking about.  In Klingon
grammar, it's officially the beneficiary of the action.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level