[86761] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: intuition and grammar (was Re: Ditransitive reflexives)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Sun Nov 1 00:40:55 2009
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <a1173fff0910311447i44ae4b0ft32e40080cc433af1@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
--- On Sat, 10/31/09, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com> wrote:
> <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
> 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
