tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 31 14:37:37 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: intuition and grammar (was Re: Ditransitive reflexives)
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: intuition and grammar (was Re: Ditransitive reflexives)
- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=1Q1mfvlBd1P5RIrhhCOq3nYpxj53mTiuJVVIRKgymMoDWye5ohrW09PmI5eUtk+H8FnoA8FsJqqsuVeTGAdcg1LZo+8AwIhQ1f8STCE3LXeoXskw9ylxTzHRlA/4XTqIQ3tl46qcGOSsxXT0DIvQbeYbB875mc5U30X7rJj9sIg=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
--- On Sat, 10/31/09, Tracy Canfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> So far as is known, -chuq can only be
> used with direct objects, not indirect
> objects - so sayeth the experts.
Actually, only used with subjects; verbs with {-chuq} have no objects.
I wish we'd get off this "ditransitive" topic, which has really had no relevance to this discussion for a long time, especially to someone who, like me, doesn't really buy the notion of ditransitive verbs in English, in the first place.
-- ter'eS
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}