tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 01 19:06:30 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klaa
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klaa
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 22:06:28 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <l0302090cafde1cd82214@[205.139.170.201]> (message from AlanAnderson on Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:59:16 -0700 (PDT))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>
>ja' peHruS:
>>In a sense, I am engaging another controversy deliberately. We know for sure
>>that adverbials (MO called them adverbials, not adverbs, for some reason
>>about which I know nothing)...
I think this is to help avoid confusion by English-speakers. Adverbs in
English are words that modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs. But in
linguistics, the term has a broader meaning, referring to other
constructions. Klingon adverbials generally modify the relationship of the
sentence as a whole, a rather different (and more limited) role than that
of English adverbs. Using a different word helps people remember that they
are used differently.
>> Although this is the only evidence that
>>adverbials can take verb suffixes, I am really stretching the issue here by
>>affixing {-chu'} to the adverbial {nom}.
>
>DaSIHtaHbe'. DapIvqu'ta'!
Are *you* inventing words now, ghunchu'wI'? Do you mean {pIv} to mean
"warp," based on {pIvghor} and {pIvlob}? Even if disassembling those words
made sense, I don't know that it would be the same type of "warp."
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM7m3ocppGeTJXWZ9AQE0EgL/bmbMILMeFoQrWtDwLOxHJ8cLNQ3JMP7r
G6lMYzwQcrQ+7nocEnRRx27+p+3KuwM5+jA6dxv3DdqzLj9gu6F+30PGKhpxTTQM
iVnCdMksisTHTzLEev7wtlKTkrOa1xNI
=KWBY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----