Re: Aw: Re: adverbials

[Stephan Schneider <sts@stephan-schneider.net>]

tulwI' jang ghunchu'wI':

>{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'}.

oops. ok, then it's a bad example.

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

ok, let's take /pem/.

>  >>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.

:) and you help me very much. thank you.

and now i think that it is a noun in my brain, too, but it also 
appears in a case (it's "wrapped" by /-mo'/). i just wanted to 
emphasize this.

>  >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.

yes. it's necessary for the semantic, but for the grammatic of the 
sentence it is not necessary. that's what i meant.

>  >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'

it's a cased noun. what about this? is it accaptable?

tulwI',
sts.