tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 31 14:48:51 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: intuition and grammar (was Re: Ditransitive reflexives)
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: intuition and grammar (was Re: Ditransitive reflexives)
- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:47:13 -0700
- 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 :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=eToAM+kC+opFc1opV7EOvh9V1ip7j7y9UpG4xOjhi4k=; b=Q0ER7oR4kJi0lr0M36UTzdHLeyIK5OwAn9VfH5s334OIKGSAn6VcaJ7PbWIrIoYgw2 tc1xeWmhUIERjDuPXe523W+MiSmu6+CFLPpW5WIwfWXDzwsW6tABBgm4h/+KSy8/m6Rg WdMCp5Podt7spKIAnmKGfTw5qELKLJijI4ND4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=q55ZywhYxSEeP9ZrYoDtcUcNPaq7yn4i7qsAJAJG28ji51NXY725ButO9FTIa7FTWm XLOP01TJCHDMcsUF3fwhn5T/xTemB4Mts3a4gPOBAKSG4b1R2EmTPIdXjMFpauS5pe+E JBdOZdCDURTvN5SVLDuGcfaTRgzPOhD7ZK7aY=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 14:34, Terrence Donnelly
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, only used with subjects; verbs with {-chuq} have no objects.
Right, because -chuq indicates that the subject and the direct object
are the same. It doesn't indicate, though, that the subject and the
indirect object are the same.
> 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.
I'm not sure what you mean about not buying the concept in English,
but the question remains: how would one say "they gave themselves
chocolate" in Klingon?
Chris