tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 27 11:39:26 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ditransitive reflexives
André Müller wrote:
> 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). ;)
The so-called prefix trick can be explained by distinguishing objects
from direct and indirect objects. The verb prefix normally represents
the direct object. However, when the prefixes indicating first- or
second-person objects (qa-, Sa-, cho-, ju-, mu-, Du-, nu-, lI-, pI-,
re-, tu-, che-, nI-, HI-, gho-} do not agree with the direct object, and
assuming the sentence is valid, the prefix indicates an unstated
indirect object (pronoun). The prefix trick does not work with
third-person–object or no-object prefixes (jI-, vI, bI-, Da-, 0, ma-,
wI-, DI-, Su-, bo-, lu-, yI-, tI-).
{tam} means "exchange, substitute," so {yuch lutampu'} probably means
"they substituted chocolate (for something else)."
Without reflexive pronouns, I don't see any way to express this short of
completely recasting it. Knowing the context would be necessary for
this. For example, {muSHa'chuqmo' be' loD je, bangDajvaD yuch nobpu'
Hoch qoch.}
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush