tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 26 17:45:27 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: I Object!
From: "Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Does any language actually "have" grammatical features? Naturally occuring
> ones don't; linguists have simply opted to classify the language's
> using various taxonomies, observing and describing patterns and rules,
> similarities and differences.
True enough. Of course, this doesn't make the use of the terms "direct
object" or "indirect object" any more useful or correct; it just means that
when something occurs in Klingon which could be called an indirect object in
English, you might just as well use the same term to describe the equivalent
part of the sentence in Klingon, because it fits in your English-shaped box
and feels comfortable. But does it fit the pattern suggested by the use of
the English-describing term?