Re: I Object!

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

From: "Alan Anderson" <aranders@netusa1.net>
> 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"
suffix
> 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!  :)

SuStel
Stardate 2078.7