tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 09 18:43:20 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
indirect objects (was RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....)
jIja'pu':
> I don't think this should be interpreted as saying that *all* indirect
> objects *must* be considered the beneficiary.
WHOOPS! I had my brain on backwards when I started arguing this point.
Please ignore anything I might have said along the lines of "not all
indirect objects are beneficiaries." What I meant was:
I don't think this should be interpreted as saying that *everything*
considered as a beneficiary *must* be an indirect object.
> Note that the
> sentences used
> as examples employ English verbs which are used in a slightly
> "ditransitive" sense:
>
> "The prisoner gave the officer the knife"
> "The officer brings them food"
ja' charghwI':
>I do notice this, but I don't see how that affects your point.
I don't usually like to use English tools to test things about Klingon
grammar, but I'll try to explain what I'm getting at.
In every case I can think of in English, an indirect object can occur in a
couple of ways. One is <VERB IO DO>, and the other is <VERB DO to IO>.
For example, "throw the dog a bone" and "throw a bone to the dog" have
"bone" as the direct object and "dog" as the indirect object. I'm going to
stick my neck out and claim that if <VERB X DO> doesn't make sense in
English, X is not the indirect object of that verb in *any* language.
Can anyone provide me a counterexample?
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh