tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 31 21:40:25 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 21:38:23 -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; b=iS2Z7C7N9kOAS65YPbQn5ZJ9dFM+vocyauoXrWWMni6ENoGIhkr6Q/MCgCdOPOXw+cWGGYaFYe3DkIJPZVpaWf0/zXuru+ecD3E45RP1yk6pwb5NpCcJmvKt8/owINl4j6F5PhqQ6VryDW2ltMZAqf9c7hTctB8t1GqjXbW3tIk=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
--- On Sat, 10/31/09, Christopher Doty <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[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?
>
Maybe it's just not possible; but if it is, it probably doesn't involve (-chuq}.
-- ter'eS