tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 30 05:55:47 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
"Benefactives" (was:Re: Using object prefixes with "intransitive" verbs)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: "Benefactives" (was:Re: Using object prefixes with "intransitive" verbs)
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:54:57 -0500
"QeS lagh" <[email protected]> wrote:
>ghItlhpu' SuStel:
>
>>I'm not sure if the concept of "beneficiary" equals the concept of
>>"indirect
>>object"; I suspect it doesn't exactly match.
QeSlagh jang:
>You're right, SuStel. "Beneficiaries" in Klingon appear to be what's
>called "benefactive" nouns, and they definitely don't exactly map to >dative objects in English. Sometimes they do, but oftentimes they don't.
>I study Ubykh as a hobby. This language uses a well-defined benefactive >marker that shows up a lot, so I feel that I'm at least basically
>qualified to discuss what a "beneficiary" is.
[details about benefactives in Ubykh]
Heh, way cool. I'd wondered if there existed a natlang that worked thusly. I especial like the idea of a "malefactive" subset of "benefactives". Opens up so many possibilities...
-quljIb