tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 30 11:11:54 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Adverbials
Robyn Stewart wrote:
> (I've taken this out of the KLBC because it's rampant speculation and
> because the last thing we need is an issue that clouds the /-'e'/
> /'e'/ distinction in beginners' minds.)
>
> ---Marc Ruehlaender wrote:
> > ja' Voragh:
> > > > {rut} would seem to belong in the clause it's modifying:
> > > >
> > > > rut puqHommey vIghIj 'e' vIparHa'.
> > > > I like to sometimes scare the children.
> > > >
> > > > puqHommey vIghIj 'e' rut vIparHa'.
> > > > I sometimes like to scare the children.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the adverb is so placed because, in addition to being a
> pronoun,
> > > > {'e'} serves the practical function of clearly separating the
> two clauses,
> > > > which can be useful in long, complicated sentences. Also, if
> you place the
> > > > adverb before {'e'} -- puqHommey vIghIj rut 'e' vIparHa' -- it
> sounds as
> > > > though {rut} is the subject of {ghIj}, particularly if you don't
> recognize
> > > > the word.
> > >
> > jang Holtej:
> > > Not to me, it doesn't. In fact, it sounds *SO* weird to me after
> the {'e'}
> > > that I have a hard time parsing it. It's costing me at least a
> double-take.
> > > I've never had a hard time with it before the {'e'}, since it was
> first
> > > brought to my attention by Krankor in HolQeD (was that 1:1, 1:2?).
> > >
> > > > We may just have to accept this as idiomatic usage, in spite of
> > > > the "illegal" position of the adverb *between* the verb and it's
> object.
> > >
> > > When the canon so clearly violates our current understanding of
> grammar, I'd
> > > seek clarification before coming to any conclusions.
> > >
> > maybe (this is of course just another theory) the pronoun {'e'} sounds
> > so much like the type 5 noun-suffix {-'e'} that it has become possible
> > to put the adverbial between it and the verb, as in TKD 6.7. p180:
> >
> > "The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still
> precede
> > the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun
> suffix
> > -'e' (see Section 3.3.5).
> >
> > HaqwI''e' DaH yISam Find the SURGEON now!"
>
> It had occured to me. O thinkit's been suggested before, too.
> Klingons themselves wouldn't be really aware of what function /'e'/
> or /-'e'/ served, it's just what sounds right. Of course it's a
> chicken and egg problem: IF the adverb placement in the two cases IS
> related, did comfort with placing the adverb after an /-'e'/-marked
> object come about *because* the adverb was already placed after the
> similar-sounding object pronoun /'e'/, or did the fact that the adverb
> after /'e'/ already sounded right influence the adverb after /-'e'/?
>
> > (Typo corrected)
> > of course then {rut 'e' vIparHa'} would still be correct.
>
> Maybe it's hypercorrect, like "this is the sort of nonsense up with
> which I will not put."
>
> Disclaimer: The above is speculation. We know that /HaqwI''e' DaH
> yISam/ is correct. Logic seems to point to */... rut 'e' vIHar/. The
> only example we have defies logic, using the adverb after /'e'/.
> Logic isn't very reliable when it comes to language.
>
> ==
>
> Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
I love a good controversy! I have to admit I originally wrote /rut 'e'
vIparHa'/, but it sounded SO WEIRD, I changed it to /'e' rut vIparHa'/ not
knowing why. Now I realize that /'e'/ is a very convenient place to divide
a sentence. I'm starting to see my own tendency to look for words like
/'ach/, /'ej/, and endings like /-meH/ to help me decide where the phrases
are. No wonder I didn't like putting the adverbial element before /'e'/!
- tuv'el