tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 02 05:14:02 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- From: Stephan Schneider <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: adverbials
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:41:52 +0200
- In-Reply-To: <LPBBIGKDIBNNFFIEJIPFAEIPCLAA.DloraH@kli.org>
- References: <LPBBIGKDIBNNFFIEJIPFAEIPCLAA.DloraH@kli.org>
> > >Nouns can be used as subjects or objects. Some words can be used as
>> >time-stamps; some (usually with the -Daq suffix) can act as locatives.
>> so obviously /-Daq/ changes something that was to be used as
>> subject-object into something that is to be used in the header.
>Nouns can be used as a subject/object OR in the header. The -Daq doesn't
>steel the noun away from the body. It is possible for an object to have
>a -Daq on it.
DloraH, i didn't say "noun" but "subject-object", just to avoid this
misunderstanding. the "something" in my sentence must be "noun", as
/-Daq/ works only on nouns, doesn't it?
so obviously /-Daq/ changes a noun that was used to be used as a
subject-object (in the body) into a noun that is to be used as a
locative (in the header).
> > this
>> is not so easy to say. it would be shorter to say that /-Daq/ turns a
>> noun into a header, but that's not correct... it turns a sobject into
>> a header... how do you say this?
>It turns a noun into a header.
how come? a noun is a part of the speech. a header is a part of the sentence.
i'm really trying to understand this grammar, but maybe i'm really
going to give up. :(
>Anybody can become president; or they can work at McD. If I punch somebody
>that works at McD, am I going to go to prison for attacking the President,
>just because everybody (nouns) COULD be a president (object/subject)?
DIr qIj ghaj jabwI'? vaj ghaytan ta' mojlaHbe'.
chut QanwI' SoH'a'? vaj ghaytan bIghHa'Daq bIjaHvIS.
a noun can become a president or work at "mac d" (that's the way we
call it, an alternative is "mac doof", which means "mac dumb"). but a
noun with /-Daq/ cannot work at the _white_ house but must do the mcd
job, so to speak.
>How do you know a subject/object isn't steeling the noun away from the
>header area? :P
there is no suffix that can to that, as far as i remember. well, if
/naDev/ is a noun that can work in the header area, and i add a
/-Daq/, then /-Daq/ claims that /naDev/ is working in the body area
in order to make him work in the header area again, which wouldn't
make much sence.
no, i don't think there is a way to turn a header-guy into a
body-guy. turning a body-guy into a header-guy is much easier, even
tho there is not much grammar in klingon to to that.
(for example, you don't even have to add a suffix in order to turn
/batlh/ (working in the body area) into /batlh/ (working in the
> > >The noun /batlh/ can be a subject or object.
>> >The adverbial /batlh/ can only be used as an adverbial, showing up before
>> >the OVS body (in the header area).
>> so i cannot use the noun /batlh/ in the header area, wheras i can use
>> the noun /ram/ in the header area?
>> tell me, you don't like to see it this way, neither, do you?
>Actually the noun /batlh/ could be in the header if it had a -vaD or -mo'.
also the noun /ram/ can be in the header if it has a /-vaD/ or
/-mo'/. but you said:
At 14:45 Uhr -0400 27.07.2002, DloraH wrote:
>/ram/ "night" is a noun. It can be used in the body of the sentence as a
>subject or object, or it can show up before that (in the header area) used
>as a time-stamp.
so /ram/ (noun) can occur in the header area, used as a time-stamp,
without adding a suffix (that wouldn't exist anyway).
is this wrong? if not, why this pattern isn't valid for /batlh/?
> > >(** the following requires a fixed-width font)
>> >wa'Hu' Qe'Daq nom yaS qIp HoD
>> >"Yesterday in the restaurant the captain quickly hit the officer."
>> >|- - - h e a d e r a r e a - - -| |- - b o d y a r e a - -|
>> >| | | |
>> >time-stamp | locative | adverbial | | object | verb | subject |
>> > | | | | | | |
>> > wa'Hu' Qe'Daq nom yaS qIp HoD
>> > (noun) (noun) (adverbial) (noun) (verb) (noun)
>> so, referring to what i wrote earlier, /-Daq/ turns a body part into
> > a header part. ok?
>In this example, Qe' was never part of this body. It was taken from the
>pile of words (the dictionary) and placed in the locative position; and
>because it's being used as a locative in this sentence, it get's a -Daq so
>we know what it's doing here.
you're right. i meant:
/-Daq/ turns someone that would normally work in the body part into
someone that has to work in the header part. i didn't mean this very
body area and this very header area.
i don't think that we add /-Daq/ in order to underline that we are
using a noun in the header area, but we use /-Daq/ in order to use a
noun in the header area, so, in order to turn a body-guy into a
but as i said before: it doesn't matter for the language how you
describe it as long as it stays the same. i just wanted to know
whether it is correct to see it in a different (or "parallel") way,
that would be easier for me to understand.
> > suffixes. for example, they select the noun from a body to have a new
>> bodypart: /Qong yaS/ <body> -> /Qongbogh yaS/ <bodypart>. or they can
>> turn a body into a header: /Qong yaS/ <body> -> /Qongchugh yaS/
> > <header>.
>I wouldn't say that last one goes in the header. It has a verb and a
>subject; the type 9 turns it into a clause that modifies the main sentence.
and how do you call this? i need names! :)
>It's not simple. Languages evolved over centuries, developed by many people
>in many groups over different regions.
yes. but grammar is always grammar. and thoughts are always thoughts.
well, i hope so.
>Why does [i] come before [e] except after [c], except in words like "weird"?
first we learn our language, afterwards we learn how to write it. the
writing (and the pronounciation) has its own rules, but they seem to
work apart from ... the language.
a language is always respawning and dying. probably all the weird
stuff in a language is part of something dying (i.e. something that
was "living" a long time ago, but now it's not active anymore).
>Even if someone here can explain THIS rule, there are somethings that just
>can't be explained.
sure. i wouldn't like to understand everything, yet. :)
but for the beginning, it would be very interesting to understand how
the parts of the speach can be integrated into the sentences. as the
a sentence can be very complicate, i would like to know the parts
that a sentence can consist of (and the parts, that these parts
body, header, sentence, subsentence, subject, object...