tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 13 07:45:53 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: indirect objects (was RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....)
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: indirect objects (was RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....)
- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:45:34 CDT
jatlh ghunchu'wI':
> > 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?
>
is every noun phrase with "to" considered an IO by English grammarians?
some of them should be considered preositional somethings, no?
jang charghwI':
> I say "Harumph" to you.
>
> I say you "Harumph".
>
this might be directional?
although in French it also uses the expression with dative, IIRC
je dis "Non!" a lui / je lui dis "Non!"
the French construction for "to give" mirrors the English
je lui donne le livre - I give him the book
je donne le livre a lui - I give the book to him
(there should be an accent grave on the a)
> I express my feelings to you.
>
> I express you my feelings. ?
>
again, this feels like a preposiotional phrase to me
although German uses also a preposition that governs dative
ich drücke dir gegenüber meine Gefühle aus
(all those possibly unreadable symbols are u-umlauts)
dir means "to you", but the case is governed by the
preposition "gegenüber"
> I move my chair to you.
>
> I move you my chair.
>
this, I'm almost sure is spatially prepositional, as
you could just as well use "towards"
> I drive my car to Charlottesville.
>
> I drive Charlottesville my car.
>
same here
> I argue my point to you.
>
> I argue you my point.
>
this one feels closest to being an IO of your examples.
I have to leave this one to the native speakers.
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]