tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 13 07:45:53 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: indirect objects (was RE: Raise Your betleH to the Stars.....)




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]


Back to archive top level