tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 28 03:35:28 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: I Object!

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
>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'


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

Back to archive top level