[77] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: more objects!
dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dcctdw@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Feb 16 15:21:42 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
From: mark@cc.gatech.edu (Mark J. Reed)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Cc: tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us (Klingon Mailing List)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 91 13:20:00 EST
In-Reply-To: <9112300744.AA12487@hodge>; from "mosquito@Athena.MIT.EDU" at Dec
\About directionals being used as objects:
\HIghoS = come here!
Literally, "Approach me". If you want to say "Come here" literally, use
na'Dev yIghoS
which uses the "no object" prefix (it's coincidence that it is the same prefix
as the "him/her/it" prefix).
\A similar question:
\torgh throws qeng papers.
\Should "qeng" take -vaD as indirect objects should, or should it take -Daq,
\which makes more semantic sense? After all, qeng is the direction of
\the throwing, not the beneficiary (or perhaps he is...).
\i.e. choices:
\qengvaD navmey woD torgh.
\qengDaq navmey woD torgh.
I'd say that the "vaD" construct is preferred; but the "Daq" construction might
be more appropriate depending on meaning. (The former is "Torgh threw the
papers to Kang"; the latter is "Torgh threw the papers *at* Kang").
--
Mark J. Reed College of Computing Technical Support
<mark@cc.gatech.edu> Georgia Institute of Technology
