tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 28 03:35:28 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: I Object!
- From: "Rohan Fenwick" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: I Object!
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 08:34:27
jatlh Sengval:
>I suppose it would also be possible to have a sentence where the header and
>the object are both marked with -Daq.
>yuQDaq DujDaq jIleng - I wander around on board the ship, (which is) on the
>planet.
>yuQDaq DujDaq vIleng - I travel to the ship, (which is) on the planet.
>Do I have it right?
If we are going to talk about quasi-indirect objects, I had the thought that
such a thing, at least in simple sentences, would be better described not by
the presence or absence of a Type 5 noun suffix, but the presence or absence
of verb agreement for that particular noun or noun phrase. Hence, in
Sengval's sentence <<yuQDaq DujDaq vIleng>>, <<Duj>> is the "direct object"
and <<yuQ>> the "indirect object", whereas in <<yuQDaq DujDaq jIleng>>, both
nouns can be classed as "indirect objects" (or "headers").
Whether you agree with the usage of indirect object or not (personally, I
myself prefer "header", as well), could someone who understands the point
I'm trying to make please tell me whether what I say makes sense or not?
Qapla' 'ej Satlho'
ro'Han
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.