Re: qep'a' pa' qoch vInej

[WestphalWz@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/12/1999 11:58:53 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
aranders@netusa1.net writes:

<< wej ben, cha' ben, wa' ben je  >>

This reply has nothing to do with Alan's request for a {qoch}.  I see that
ghunchu'wI'  does indeed write the number and the noun separately.  Well, I
don't want to pick on ghunchu'wI' here.  MO is WRONG.  MO clearly lists
{wa'Hu'} and {wa'leS} as two-syllable single words on p. 113 of TKD.  MO
should have separated these glosses into a number and a NOUN.

Well, if MO is right on p. 113, then MO himself has not given us complete
explanations why p. 92 {leS} (n) and p. 90 {Hu'} (n) have become time words
(which I still think are "adverbs" in function).  There is other evidence that
specific Klingon nouns may function as adverbs:  {Dat}, {naDev}, and {pa'}.
Hmm.  Specific Klingon nouns may function as adverbs; not all nouns will ever
function as adverbs.  Unlike in languages of Earth, we cannot add on an
equivalent of "-ly" of English or "-siya" of Swahili and change just any noun
into an adverb.  peHruS muses aloud.

I see I'm not through thinking about this.

peHruS