tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 12 22:09:47 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: indirect objects (was RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 7:21 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: indirect objects (was RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....)
>
> 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?
I say "Harumph" to you.
I say you "Harumph".
[Like Yoda this sounds.]
I express my feelings to you.
I express you my feelings. ?
I move my chair to you.
I move you my chair.
I drive my car to Charlottesville.
I drive Charlottesville my car.
I argue my point to you.
I argue you my point.
> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
charghwI' 'utlh