tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 24 07:38:06 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: summer [KLBC?]
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: summer [KLBC?]
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:37:58 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 04:32:30 -0700 [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 96-06-23 22:56:21 EDT, charghwI' writes:
>
> >Qagh yInejqa'! {wIbIrqu'}? "We very cold it/him/her/them."? Are we using
> >{naDev} as a noun
>
> I certainly hope we are using {naDev} as a noun. As I read TKD, it is one.
> :-) The concepts expressed by the English adverbs here, there, and
> everywhere aree expressed by *nouns* in Klingon.
You chopped off the part of my message which explained the
whole of my meaning. {naDev} is a noun so that it can be
used as a subject or object in addition to its usual use as
a locative. In that sentence, it was probably intended to be
a locative, not an object and the prefix on the verb was
certainly wrong. You could not tell if it were an object or
a locative by its position in the sentence, and since
locatives (whether nouns or not) function adverbially in a
sentence, describing WHERE an action takes place, they are
not FUNCTIONING as nouns, even if they ARE nouns, and I
never stated that {naDev} was not a noun. I suggested that
it was not being USED as a noun, but as a locative instead.
While I welcome correction when I am wrong, THIS example
strikes me as nit-picking, wise-assed...
[wa. cha. wej. loS. QIt yItlhuH, charghwI'. yIleS. ramqu'
ghu'...]
So, if my observation is so incorrect as to deserve this
critique, why don't you explain just exactly what is meant
by {naDev wIbIrqu'...}, which was declared grammatically
correct by our BG, whom I sincerely respect. Apparently, I
simply misunderstood. Why don't you explain it to me? {{:)>
> qoro'nIn
charghwI'