tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 26 15:42:07 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ditransitive reflexives
- From: Tracy Canfield <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Ditransitive reflexives
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:41:03 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=KZl3Wh8RJqYItObgSmesGBcnwAxFg7XFX4wXbhTFuGI=; b=f7WnpMe6gBq4bxDNmsXpZaOsvx7iVOspSkV1p7UQxbC6PR7UdqEwK5PwF63r4GdLQW +BsZyGlvnsuSBG01vAZeV+D5mcvYIf6ElDS2lUAMFFdPy7JcW1jcEWryufOKQ+4DlMOv nyT2iGChR08FwXTnrvMNs41Vld0nuSBdRwWdQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=BpKkygjOmsyxCRoZO2QMBHGOCWeLuBXAspfla0/7hlDiYg6fFjbGeUzjN+FQp8DMqL lotos4swJhzfwdcjzL2OE9coVqs0O4Ox6gpfX56gQQ6s/6lVliimRC1uYNmgu8wWk9NT H+gPMUZEHxN7kXQywXWSZZwOIEcuM+Rj20mi8=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
My original post discusses *why* the prefix trick seems to be a problem in
these cases. With examples. So I really am more than a little frustrated
to have two people immediately tell me to use it, without addressing the
original question.
2009/10/26 André Müller <[email protected]>
> 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 <[email protected]>
>
> > 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 <[email protected]>
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>