tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 26 15:35:53 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Ditransitive reflexives

Andrà MÃller (esperantist@gmail.com)



I think what Lieven was implying was that it *might* be that if you can use
the "prefix trick" (isn't this simply what's usually called dative-shift?)
for ditransitive sentences too. So, a ditransitive verb like give with the
prefix trick looks as if it had two direct objects: one expressed by the
prefix and an overt one in form of a noun. A double accusative structure, if
you want it that way.
It's not unlogical to reason that using the reciprocal suffix {-chuq} behind
the ditransitive verb expresses likewise the meaning of "giving X to each
other".
We don't have any canon phrases expressing this concept, but a sentence like
that *could* be:
{yuch nobchuqpu'}

But this is only an educated guess, as there's no example in the corpus, we
can only guess... but maybe there are other possibilities, like {yuch
lutampu'} (they exchanged chocolate). ;)

Greetings,
- André

2009/10/26 Tracy Canfield <toastrix@gmail.com>

> Yeah, but ... that's not what I'm asking.
> My question is about what happens when either the direct object or the
> indirect object is the same as the subject.
>
> 2009/10/26 Lieven Litaer <levinius@gmx.de>
>
> > I don't know if that's the answer, but maybe a way towards it:
> >
> > You can say
> >  {jIHvaD paq yInob}
> >  "give the book to me"
> >
> > and
> >  {paq HInob}
> >  "give me the book"
> >
> > I think that's called the "prefix trick".
> >
> > Quvar.
> >
> > --
> > GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
> > Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>





Back to archive top level