tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 25 06:47:39 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
adverbials (was: chotwI'/mang)
loS Hu' SuStel lab:
> > jes, but the noun /naDev/ can act like an adverbial, which sometimes
> > can take /-Ha/ (like /batlh/). /-Ha/ is a rover, isn't it?
>
>I'm not going to get into the rest of the message; just this part. We'd
>already been discussing /naDev/ and adverbials.
but i still don't have an answer for the question if
"/naDev/ (noun); */naDevDaq/ (wrong); use /naDev/ instead of
/naDevDaq" = "/naDev/ (noun); /naDev/ (adverbial)"
>/naDev/ is a noun. It is not an adverbial. No matter what /naDev/ does, it
>is still a noun, and nouns do not use /-Ha'/.
i didn't want to give /naDev/ any /-Ha'/ or /-Daq/. i just wanted to
call it an adverbial. ...
>Someone (you?) gave a definition of "adverbial" that came out to "any word
>that modifies the verb as an adverb might," or thereabouts. That's nice and
>all, but that's not what Klingon adverbials are. In Klingon, the term
>"adverbial" is applied to a specific subset of the /chuvmey/ (non-nouns,
>non-verbs).
>
>Furthermore, /-Ha'/ is not exactly an adverbial suffix. Its use on
>adverbials is not predictable: not every adverbial can use it. There was a
>discussion recently about a list of every allowed "adverbial-Ha'." If it's
>not on the list, it's not allowed (so far as we know).
... and as you said, /-Ha/ is not exactly an adverbial suffix. so the
fact that /naDev/ cannot take /-Ha/ doesnt prove that /naDev/ isn't
an adverbial. so why /naDev/ is not an adverbial?
sts.