Re: I Object!

[PeHruS9@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/26/2002 3:04:29 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
SuStel@hotmail.com writes:


> I feel it is important to correct and clarify a little terminology here.
> There is no indirect object in any of these sentences.  In fact, Klingon
> does not have indirect objects

SuStel, this only a matter of semantics in English.  Klingon DOES have 
Indirect objects.  The proof lies in TKD 6.8 of the addendum.

Due to the FACT that the section heading is indeed "Indirect objects," the 
paragraph following that heading deals with Indirect objects.  If the text of 
the section had stated that Klingon grammarians use a different terminology, 
I would agree with that terminology instead of pointing out that, quote:  "In 
a Klingon sentence, the indirect object precedes the subject and is suffixed 
with the Type 5 noun suffix -vaD for, intended for.

peHruS