tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 04 08:42:57 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "under" (was KLBC:Name that Song)
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "under" (was KLBC:Name that Song)
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:42:52 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:09:41 -0700 [email protected]
wrote:
...
> Until this discussion began, I, too, looked at Locative constructs at
> Adverbial clauses. That is because in Earth language they are Adverbial
> clauses. But, TKD pp27-28 clearly states "It is worth noting at this point
> that the concepts expressed by the English adverbs 'here, there,' and
> 'everywhere' are experssed by nouns in Klingon: {naDev} 'hereabouts,' {pa'}
> 'thereabouts, {Dat} 'everywhere.' These words may perhaps be translated more
> litereally as 'area around here,' 'area over there,' and 'all places,'
> respectively. Unlike other nouns, these three words are never followed by
> the locative suffix."
>
> I found this within Section 3.3.5. "Syntactic Markers."
>
> Contrary to my own belief up to now, I read in this passage that Locatives
> are Noun constructs, not Adverb constructs. Such Noun clauses would
> constitute an Object of a Verb.
I was with you up to that point, but I think you lost it on
the curve. I believe that locatives are nouns which
function adverbially. Even if this is inaccurate (at least
it is not approximate!) it is clear that these nouns are
NOT functioning as objects. Just check out any of the
examples in canon. There are lots to choose from. Note the
prefix on the main verb. Locatives are not objects.
They come before objects in a sentence. TKD 6.1. "Any noun
indicating something other than subject or object comes
first, before the object noun. Such nouns usually end in a
Type 5 suffix." If it were the object noun, we would
probably not be explicitly told to put it in front of the
object noun, suggesting that it is something different from
the object noun, yes? {-Daq} is indeed Type 5.
The only Type 5 suffix applied to an object noun is
{-'e'}, and even that generally occurs mostly as an
extention to TKD grammar, as head noun of a relative
clause with both an explicit subject and object. You can
use it to emphasize the object, but we don't really have a
lot of canon supporting that either.
> Now I'm really interested in comments from the Experts. tlhIHvaD wanI'vam
> DIqaD
>
> peHruS
----------------------
charghwI'