From: Randy Leedy (RLEEDY@wpo.bju.edu)
Date: Fri Nov 22 1996 - 11:26:30 EST
Jonathan Robie wrote:
>QEWi, on the other hand, is dative, not because of the EN, but
>because of its own function in relation to the kernal "Glory (be)."
>(It's not "Glory be IN God," but "Glory be TO God.") I would be
>interested to hear some comments on how this dative should be
>construed: is it possessive, ethical, advantage, or something else
>that I can't think of? Unfortunately, I'm away from my grammars at
Isn't God just the indirect object? Glory be to God is just another
way of saying *give* glory to God, but the subject is omitted. I
don't see any reason to get fancier than that.
The reason I have a hard time taking QEWi as indirect object is that
the kernel expression isn't transitive. With "Glory" in the
nominative, it's hard to take it as the object of an elliptical verb
(as you did by supplying "Give"); rather it must be the subject, and
the expression, when filled out, is intransitive. How can you say
"the subject is omitted" when you've got a big fat nominative staring
you in the face?
I don't know whether or not grammarians are agreed on the assumption
I make, which is you can have an indirect object only where the verb
is transitive. But that's my reason for going another direction with
this particular sentence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:57 EDT