[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
We shouldn't drop the indirect object into the prepositional phrase bucket, as I was earlier suggesting. The problem was that I got myself confused between prepositional phrases that act as adverbs and prepositional phrases that express indirect objects. I was thinking that it was too hard for non- linguists to tell the difference between them, but it isn't, because a verb simply cannot have more than ONE indirect object (though it might be a compound phrase, like "to man and to dog"). Even though Loglan tried to construct verbs of four and even five places, really the most places a verb can have is three: subject, direct object, and indirect object (I think the linguistic terms are agent, focus, and patient). So we don't need an infinitely expandable way to mark verb places; we only need three. By default we mark subject and direct object by position. If we can mark the indirect object clearly, perhaps with a very special functional word, then any other prepositional phrases just go wherever they ought to go to modify subject, object, indirect object, or -- for that matter -- verb. So first I'd like to narrow down how we mark the indirect object, and then discuss where prepositional phrases (which by definition are NOT the indirect object) ought to go. Make sense? --Krawn