tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 30 10:19:19 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Adverbials
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Adverbials
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
(I've taken this out of the KLBC because it's rampant speculation and
because the last thing we need is an issue that clouds the /-'e'/
/'e'/ distinction in beginners' minds.)
---Marc Ruehlaender wrote:
> 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!"
It had occured to me. O thinkit's been suggested before, too.
Klingons themselves wouldn't be really aware of what function /'e'/
or /-'e'/ served, it's just what sounds right. Of course it's a
chicken and egg problem: IF the adverb placement in the two cases IS
related, did comfort with placing the adverb after an /-'e'/-marked
object come about *because* the adverb was already placed after the
similar-sounding object pronoun /'e'/, or did the fact that the adverb
after /'e'/ already sounded right influence the adverb after /-'e'/?
> (Typo corrected)
> of course then {rut 'e' vIparHa'} would still be correct.
Maybe it's hypercorrect, like "this is the sort of nonsense up with
which I will not put."
Disclaimer: The above is speculation. We know that /HaqwI''e' DaH
yISam/ is correct. Logic seems to point to */... rut 'e' vIHar/. The
only example we have defies logic, using the adverb after /'e'/.
Logic isn't very reliable when it comes to language.
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com