tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 30 19:44:11 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klaa
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)...
Klingon grammar does not label adverbs. They are part of the collection
of words known as {chuvmey}; the word "adverbial" is a convenience for
those who are studying the language "from outside".
>... can take the two of the verb suffixes known as rovers: {-be'} and {Ha'}.
*I* don't "know for sure" that this is possible! We've seen that there
are some adverbial opposites that differ in one having {-Ha'}, but we've
also seen that not all adverbial words make sense this way. {?vajHa'}
isn't acceptable, it seems. Where did you see an adverbial with {-be'}?
> 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'!
-- ghunchu'wI'