tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 16 03:46:30 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: adverbs
DloraH:
> > so <nuq> isn't an adverb.
>
>If I were to give it a label other than "question-word" I would use "pronoun",
>because it goes in place of the noun it's representing.
interesting.
> > >>>tagha'
>> >>is <tagha'> an exclamation? i think that an exclamation is like one
>> >>frase, it's no adverb. is that right?
>> >
>> >tagha' is defnitely an adverbial, but:
>> >
>> >Adverbials sometimes occur alone, functioning more or less as
>> >exclamations (TKD, p.57) (This is the last paragraph in section 5.4
>> >for those of you who don't use the English version.)
>>
>> so i can say: <tagha'.> (exclamation) and <tagha' bIghol.> (sentence
> > with adverb) right?
>
>Well, your use of tagha' is correct. The only ghol I know of is a noun.
i don't remember what i wanted to write. but "ghol" was not what i intended.
> > >><Dat>
>> >><DaHjaj>
>> >><naDev>
>> >><pa'>
>> >
>> >These are all classified as nouns, actually. They're some of those
>> >tricky nouns that are not subjects or objects but don't have a Type
>> >5 suffix. We are told explicitly in TKD that /Dat/, /naDev/, and
>> >/pa'/ never take a Type 5 suffix (p. 27, sec. 3.3.5).
>>
>> hm. would there be any difference if these words were be called
>> adverbs? it would be easier to remember than that they are nouns that
>> cannot take type 5 suffixes.
>
>How would a location (pa, naDev, Dat) be used as an adverb?
>naDev yIghoS
>naDev is the object of ghoS.
ehm... well...
it's both an adverb and a noun. in <naDev yIghoS> <naDev> is a noun.
but it can be an adverb in other sentences, like <naDev jIQong>.
<batlh> is also both an adverb and a noun. if there was a suffix to
make <batlh> an adverb, it would be forbidden to use it, probably
(just like it's forbidden ot say <naDevDaq>).
>DloraH, BG