tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 29 00:51:17 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: I Object!

From: "Alan Anderson" <>
> Similarly, calling a noun marked with the Klingon suffix {-vaD} an
> "indirect object" presents a skewed and incomplete description.  The best
> way to describe it, in my opinion, is that the Klingon "beneficiary"
> fits well to express what in English is called an indirect object.  The
> reverse is not necessarily true, as {-vaD} does not *always* map to an
> English indirect object.

What he said!  :)

Stardate 2078.7

Back to archive top level