tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 30 09:39:30 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC - Adverbials
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC - Adverbials
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:39:12 CDT
ja' Voragh:
> > {rut} would seem to belong in the clause it's modifying:
> >
> > rut puqHommey vIghIj 'e' vIparHa'.
> > I like to sometimes scare the children.
> >
> > puqHommey vIghIj 'e' rut vIparHa'.
> > I sometimes like to scare the children.
> >
> > Perhaps the adverb is so placed because, in addition to being a pronoun,
> > {'e'} serves the practical function of clearly separating the two clauses,
> > which can be useful in long, complicated sentences. Also, if you place the
> > adverb before {'e'} -- puqHommey vIghIj rut 'e' vIparHa' -- it sounds as
> > though {rut} is the subject of {ghIj}, particularly if you don't recognize
> > the word.
>
jang Holtej:
> Not to me, it doesn't. In fact, it sounds *SO* weird to me after the {'e'}
> that I have a hard time parsing it. It's costing me at least a double-take.
> I've never had a hard time with it before the {'e'}, since it was first
> brought to my attention by Krankor in HolQeD (was that 1:1, 1:2?).
>
> > We may just have to accept this as idiomatic usage, in spite of
> > the "illegal" position of the adverb *between* the verb and it's object.
>
> When the canon so clearly violates our current understanding of grammar, I'd
> seek clarification before coming to any conclusions.
>
maybe (this is of course just another theory) the pronoun {'e'} sounds
so much like the type 5 noun-suffix {-'e'} that it has become possible
to put the adverbial between it and the verb, as in TKD 6.7. p180:
"The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede
the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix
-'e' (see Section 3.3.5).
HaqwI''e' DaH yISam Find the SURGEON now!"
(Typo corrected)
of course then {rut 'e' vIparHa'} would still be correct.
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]