Re: I Object!

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@hotmail.com>]

From: <PeHruS9@aol.com>
> SuStel, this only a matter of semantics in English.  Klingon DOES have
> Indirect objects.  The proof lies in TKD 6.8 of the addendum.

As Lawrence has pointed out, this sort of classification is done by
linguists; it's not inherent in the language itself.  Thus, I agree that one
might consider it semantics in English, but then I would have to insist that
it also means that it's a matter of semantics in Klingon too.

> 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.

Which to me makes it perfectly clear that that which is considered an
indirect object in English is typically handled by /-vaD/ in Klingon, NOT
that Klingons have some terminology that equates with indirect object.  Call
it an indirect object now or not; it's just a name for a specific use of
/-vaD/.  What I would object to is considering nouns with /-vaD/ to be
somehow more special than nouns with, say, /-Daq/.

SuStel
Stardate 2076.9