Re: Aw: Re: adverbials

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

tulwI' jang SuStel:

>From: "Stephan Schneider" <sts@stephan-schneider.net>
>>  >/ram/ is a noun that means "night."  /rammo'/ is a noun meaning
>>  >"because-of-night."  Then, because "because-of-night" isn't likely to be
>the
>>  >subject or object of the sentence, the gets dumped into the "header"
>space.
>>
>>  this would make me think that there could be one "because of night".
>
>Huh?

i try to answer your question.
if we don't distinguish between a noun and a case-wrapped noun, than 
one could think (for example, me) that any noun can be but in a 
nounphrase like "a <noun>". for example, "tree" is a noun, and i'm 
used to be able to say "a tree". if "because of the night" is a noun, 
then i would think that it would be able to say "a because of the 
night".

this thread, however, becomes more and more stressing and 
hairsplitting, and i regret that.

>  > but of course we can say that suffixes don't change the part of
>>  speech of a word,
>>  but then i ask: what part of speech is a "tulwI'" -
>>  a noun or a verb?
>
>/tul/ is a verb.  /tulwI'/ is a noun.  That's what /-wI'/ is for.  /-wI'/
>doesn't make /tul/ a noun, it makes /tulwI'/ a noun.
>
>>  >P.S.: /ram/ is a REALLY bad example word . . . .
>>
>>  it's always the bad examples that are the best examples, imho.
>
>Umm . . . why?

as i already posted: i didn't understand that you meant that there 
are two /ram/s.

tulwI',
sts.