tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 10 21:52:02 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Aw: Re: adverbials



{rammo'} is probably a very bad example word to use for this discussion,
because there is a noun {ram} "night" and a verb {ram} "be unimportant",
and because there is both a noun suffix and a verb suffix {-mo'}.

Can we change the word?  There's no verb {pem}, and it fits in the sentence
exactly the way {ram} does.

>>of course. whether you see rammo' as a noun with a suffix or as
>>something else (a phrase, maybe?) doesn't change this.
>>
>>I still prefer to see it as a noun (with a suffix)

ja' Stephan Schneider <sts@stephan-schneider.net> (tulwI'):

>_you_ can see it this way, but the grammar implemented in your brain,
>can't.

jIQochchu'.  Assuming the context is appropriate, when I hear {pemmo'
tujchoH muD}, I assure you that {pem} is a noun in *my* brain.  I like to
think that I have a good grasp of how Klingon works in practice, and I'm
pretty sure I'm qualified to debate theory from an informed point of view
as well.

>i'm sure that when you see /ram/ that is "wrapped" by a
>/-mo'/, your brain doesn't need to know that /rammo'/ has a noun in
>it.

Sure it does.  In order to understand that something is happening because
of the daytime, I'm definitely going to need to know that the cause is a
thing, not an action.

>in order to build a sentence, you have to descrbe /rammo'/
>differently than "a noun with a suffix". it's "a noun with a suffix
>that turns a noun in to a xxx, so it's a xxx". what's xxx?

I think the label you might be looking for is "a reason" or "a cause".  But
it doesn't stop being a noun just because it has a type 5 suffix on it.

-- ghunchu'wI'


Back to archive top level