tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 26 19:11:57 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Ditransitive reflexives

Terrence Donnelly (terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net) [KLI Member]



--- On Mon, 10/26/09, Tracy Canfield <toastrix@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

You have found a lacuna in Klingon grammar. As far as I know, there is no easy way to express a reciprocal relationship between the subjects and beneficiaries of a verb phrase.  You were posing the possibility of treating such a relationship as if it were a reciprocal subject-object relationship by using the "prefix trick" in some way, but the fact is that the verb in a (-chuq) phrase has no object, as shown by the use of the "no-object" verb prefixes. We say, for example, "We hit each other",  using a "dummy" object to express the mutual action, but Klingons say {mamupchuq}, or something like "We reciprocally and mutually hit". As Doq noted, don't be influenced by the "each other" in the English, since the Klingon phrase is object-less, and thus the prefix trick is irrelevant.

-- ter'eS






Back to archive top level