tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 25 06:47:22 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: adverbials
lab Andrew:
> >ok, so /naDev/ is no adverbial, but it can be something "similar". so
> >it seems to me that /naDev/ is a locative (besides of being a noun),
> >and therefore a chuv anyawy. is /naDev/ a locative header?
>
>It seems that the terminology is at stake here.
>
>An adverbial (linguistically speaking) is any word that is used in an
>adverbial capacity. There are some words which can *only* be used in an
>adverbial capacity, and those are usually referred to as adverbs. It is
>puzzling to me why Okrand called "bong", "chIch", "pIj", "tugh", etc.
>adverbials, when they are really adverbs -- they can only be used in an
>adverbial capacity; they seem to have no other function. On the other hand,
>words like DaHjaj, naDev, and even phrases like "tlhIngan Hol lo'taHvIS", are
>used in adverbial capacities, even tho they are obviously not adverbs.
>
>To call something an adverbial is not to identify what kind of word it is,
>but rather to indicate how it is being used in a sentence. Thus:
>
>"DaHjaj Daj." (Today it is interesting). Here, DaHjaj is an adverbial.
>
>"Daj DaHjaj." (Today is interesting). Here, DaHjaj is not an adverbial.
>
>DaHjaj itself is a noun; it is not an adverb, but it can be an adverbial in
>some sentences.
>
>The same terminological principle applies to the word "header". Calling
>something a "header" is really just saying that it occurs in a certain
>syntactic position. It asserts nothing about other ways in which the word
>might possibly be used.
this is quite important and interesting for me. i think i got the
difference between part of speech and part of sentence before, but
obviously i forgot it again. i try to resume:
an adverbial is a part of a sentence and can consist of one or more words.
an adverb is a part of speech and, if alone, acts like an adverbial.
seemingly a header is an adverbial in a klingon sentence, (otherwise
you would have had to say that /DaHjaj/ is a timestamp and no
adverbial; so it's a timestamp and consequently an adverbial (an
subconsequently a header in a klingon sentence)). right?
so i try to ask in a more correct way:
/naDev/ is a noun (part of speech) and can be, as part of a klingon
sentence, be a header. "linguistically speaking" it can be an
adverbial (more precisely a "locative adverbial"). qar'a'?
sts.