tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 16 17:20:51 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aw: Re: adverbials
>From: "Stephan Schneider" <[email protected]>
>> if "because of the night" was a normal noun like "night" then i could
>> say "that because of the night" just like "that night"; but i can't.
>> i can only say "because of that night", because "because" wrappes the
>> noun-phrase "night" and "that night", but "because of the night" and
>> "because of that night" are no noun phrases. they are wrapped
>> noun-phrases. it would be usefull to distinguish between those
>> things, don't you think?
>>
>> <precog>
>> i know that we can't say *"rammo'vetlh" because "mo'" is type 5 and
>> "vetlh" is type 4, but _the reason for that_ is that "vetlh" wrapps a
>> noun-phrase and returns a noun-phrase. and "mo'" wrapps a noun-phrase
>> and returns an "adverbial", i'd say. anyway, i returns something
>> different than a noun-phrase. so */mo'vetlh/ is impossible. i just
>> would like to describe the language without using terms like "type
>> four", "type five", but with terms like "noun-phrase-wrapper", which
>> are more plastic, don't you think?
>> </pregog>
>
>*shrug* I certainly don't want to! I don't think it helps at all.
what does *shrug* mean?
you don't think it helps? it would have helped to me when i began to
learn klingon, i think.
>You can't say */mejpa'Ha'/ even though I sure would like to. You can't say
>*/jatlhta'chu'/ even though people get Type 6 and 7 backward all the time.
>There are lots of things that you can conceive of that just don't happen.
*/jatlhta'chu'/ is wrong because /-ta'/ is type 7 and /-chu'/ is type
6. i don't understand what you are using this example for?
*/mejpa'Ha'/ is wrong because /-Ha'/ has to follow the verb root. and
it doesn't make wonder: hat should be the opposite of "again"?
>*/pemmo'vetlh/ is also something you just can't say, and it's no more
>surprising than those verbs I mentioned above.
>
>Beyond that, I really don't know what you're driving at. You seem to just
>want to invent new terminology, but I'm not sure why.
the tkd terminology says "you can't say this, because you can't." or
"you can't say this because 7 is greater than 6." that's no
explanation. i would like to have an explanation that explains
instead of saying "correct" and "incorrect". i want to understand the
grammar, not just immitate it.
but this is not really necessary now, it would be just beautiful for me.
tulwI',
sts.