tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 09 10:21:05 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Aw: RE: adverbials

>excuse me for stepping in here.
>I don't claim to have a *better* way of explaining,
>but maybe a different one....
>Von:     Stephan Schneider <>
>>  so tell me, what do /-Daq/, /-vaD/ and /-mo'/ do, speaking with terms
>>  like "noun", "header" and so on?
>they tell you what *type* of header the noun they're
>attached to is in, i.e. location/destination, or
>beneficiary, or reason

and how do you call that? beneficiant, maybe? there must be names.

>  > that wasn't my point. from my point of view, /rammo'/ is not a noun.
>>  (also in english you wouln't say that "due to the night" is a noun.)
>this (what you put in parentheses) is completely irrelevant.
>it's like saying <headers> is not a noun in english because
>of the suffix -s; in Klingon the suffix -mo' is not different
>from the suffix -mey in that respect (of course their semantics

this is interesting. the plural-singular story is a different one, 
though. a noun, being in plurar or singular is a noun (or something 
that we should give a name for). the number of things is irrelevant 
for the rule in the sentence. /-mo'/ for example, changes the rule in 
the sentence, the "part of the sentence".

i would like to understand all the "rules in a sentence" or "parts of 
sentence" that words can have / correspond to.

>  > no. i still mean the naked /batlh/, /ram/ (and /naDev/). and the
>>  pattern i meant is about being naked (without any suffix) in the
>>  header or naked in the OVS body:
>>  /batlh/ is a noun that can occur naked in the body.
>>  /batlh/ is an adverbial that can occur naked in the header.
>this makes it look as if you're talking about the same
>word, however, these are two completely different
>words which just happen to look the same.

err... no!!! i can't believe it!

>we know this, because they belong to different classes,
>namely nouns (<batlh>_1) and others (<batlh>_2)

ok, but why one word cannot belong to two classes at the same time?

>(the two nouns <pa'>_1 "room" and <pa'>_2 "area
>over there" are another example of homophones)


/pa'/ is a noun that can occur naked in the body. ("room")
/pa'/ is a noun that can occur naked in the header. ("there")

>  > /naDev/ is a noun that can occur naked in the body.
>>  /naDev/ is a noun that can occur naked in the header.
>as an explicitly mentioned exception, if it was supposed
>to be marked with -Daq (you cannot use a bare <naDev>
>instead of <naDevvo'> for example)

i know. there is a difference in the descriptions of the language 
(yours and mine), the relation between /naDev/, /pa'/, /ram/ and 
/batlh/ is obvious. it's not necessary to invent one exception rule 
for /naDev/ (i.e. "it doesn't take /-Daq/), one for /batlh/ (i.e. 
"there are two words which just look the same"), one for /ram/ (i.e. 
"there is only one noun, but it can be a time stamp"). isn't that 
obvious? it's always the same rule. *"a noun can become an adverbial 
without adding any suffix - but only a few: /naDev/, /batlh/, /ram/ 
and others."

>  > /ram/ is a noun that can occur naked in the body.
>>  /ram/ is a noun that can occur naked in the header.
>but only, when it is in a header that is not marked
>by a suffix (or maybe it *is* marked by a null suffix),
>namely a time stamp

marked by a null-suffix? what is a null-suffix?

and what is the sence in saying that /ram/ can occur naked in the 
header, but only when the header is not marked? do you mean /ram/ or 
something that accompanies it?

>  > i see a pattern there.
>I hope you can see now that the pattern is very superficial
>as the reasons for the second line to be true is completely
>different in all three cases

again i don't understand. the reason to be true would be that the 
noun is bare. so it's always the same reason. please explain.

>  > it would be easier to
>>  say that /batlh/, /naDev/ and /ram/ are nouns that can occur "naked"
>>  in the header.
>I simply disagree, but I guess what is "easier"
>is a matter of personal preference

well, i don't disagree what you have written. it's correct (of 
course, it's what MO says). i found what i said easier, or at least 
interesting to see it that way. personal preference, yes. anyway, i 
simply wanted to know whether it is possible to see it that way 
without damaging the language, so to speak.


Back to archive top level