tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 16 17:20:51 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Aw: Re: adverbials

>From: "Stephan Schneider" <>
>>  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.


Back to archive top level