RE: I Object!

["Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen" <lawrence@kli.org>]

ghItlh SuStel:

>What in
>English is represented by the concept of an indirect object, Klingon uses a
>noun suffix for, not an entity called an indirect object.  To speak of
>"direct" and "indirect" objects in Klingon is to impose a structure that
>doesn't exist in the language.

Two imaginary bonus points to David for a clever subject line. {{{:-)

I believe I understand the *intent* here, but the distinction that is being
made could just as easily be dismissed as disingenous. The main reason, as
I see it, we can't speak of direct and indirect objects in Klingon is
because we lack the terminology to so. But otherwise, if it walks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it might actually be a Pluvian
Slug Beast but everyone will know what you mean if you describe it as a
duck.

Does any language actually "have" grammatical features? Naturally occuring
ones don't; linguists have simply opted to classify the language's features
using various taxonomies, observing and describing patterns and rules,
similarities and differences.

For my money, the real question becomes: Does Klingon have circumstances in
which certain nouns function as indirect objects?

 * - * We now return you to your previous argument, already in progress. * - *

Lawrence