tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 07 19:42:28 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Qum
From: "Scott Willis" <[email protected]>
> So if we only consider examples from canon, {vIQum} is incorrect, and
> {ghaHvaD Qum} is correct, right?
Well, the two canon examples Voragh provided don't discount the possibility
of /Qum/ taking an object, but they also don't demonstrate it.
> Or can the {ghaHvaD} clause only represent
> an indirect object in this type of construction? (It follows that in order
> to have an indirect object, one must first have an object, right?).
Klingon doesn't have a special grammatical feature called "indirect object."
Nouns with /-vaD/ might have a semantic role of indirect object. You don't
need to have a "direct" object in order to have an indirect object.
'avwI'vaD jatlh qama'
The prisoner speaks to the guard.
There is no object here (the prisoner isn't saying something specific to the
guard, he's just speaking to him). The guard is the beneficiary of the
action.
I'd stick with /ghaHvaD Qum/ until such time as we get more information on
/Qum/.
SuStel
Stardate 3104.9