tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 20 21:06:14 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: RE: Mu'mey chu'
ja' charghwI':
>qechvam vIqelta'DI' ghIq qechwIj vIDel vIneHchoH.
>
>Hmmm. Maybe this works after all. It does seem a bit
>superfluous, however. {-DI'} sets the time stamp of the action.
>{ghIq} then tells you that the action follows after the time
>stamp.
It's just as superfluous as using {vaj} after a {-chugh}, in my opinion.
Maybe it would seem less so if you left off the {-ta'}?
qechvam vIqelDI' ghIq qechwIj vIDel vIneHchoH.
There's lots of room for subtle shifts of meaning here depending on the
use or not of perfective suffixes and sequence adverbials.
>> nuHvetlh chonobchugh vaj ghIq nuchvam vIHoHlaH
>>
>> All four follow the grammar that we know, and all four seem to make sense.
>
>The last example does have two adverbials on the same clause.
>This is not forbidden, but then it also doesn't exist in canon
>and there is at least a thin argument against it:
>
>Many of the verb suffixes function adverbially. The chuvmey
>suited to act as an adverb could be seen in a similar way. You
>can't use two verb suffixes of the same type. Adverbials may
>function as a sort of detached affix type. There may very well
>be only one place in a clause for an adverb.
>
>This is total fiction, but then, so is the whole language. I'd
>just like to see one example of two adverbs in a canon sentence,
>or hear that it is not acceptable. Otherwise, it is simply
>something Okrand has not thought about yet.
qen 'arlogh Qoylu'pu'?
Neither of the words {qen} and {'arlogh} is labeled as an adverbial, but
they do act adverbially. So do dependent clauses in general. But your
point is still valid -- we haven't noticed any sentences with more than
one "true adverbial" at the same time.
>> OK, to use a canon example: <nuHlIj DawIvpu', vaj yISuv!> (TKW page 151).
>> This is either a case of weird punctuation (which is quoted along with the
>> text) or of <vaj> as a conjunction. Either way, it means the same thing, so
>> I will now choose to ignore the argument.
>
>I would be interested to hear Okrand's comment on this.
I suspect it's odd punctuation. The penultimate phrase in TKW (page 212)
is {QaghmeylIj tIchID, yIyoH}. This has the same "weird" use of a comma
to separate two sentences as does the example on page 151.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh