tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 07 11:26:44 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: continue

jalthpu' SuStel:
> jISoptaH 'e' vImev.  jIjatlh: jISopbe' qatlh DaneH?**
> jang jupwI'; jatlh: bIpI'choHtaH.
> **There is evidence that this should be /qatlh jISopbe' DaneH/.  In Star
> Trek V Captain Klaa says /reH DIvI' Duj vISuv vIneH/ for "I've always wanted
> to fight a Federation ship" (or something close to that).  Notice how it
> appears to say "I want to always fight a Federation ship," a very different
> concept.  Whereas in the standard Sentence as Object construction, /'e'/ is
> the object (standing in for the previous sentence), Klaa's sentence might be
> interpreted as using the previous sentence itself as the object, which puts
> the adverbial /reH/ before it.  This is all just speculation, however.

I remember seeing this and wincing and then realizing that it actually DID make 
sense the other way. While the meaning is different, the effect is the same, if 
you get rid of the perfective, which is absent from the Klingon. If I always 
want to fight a Fed ship, then I want to always fight a Fed ship.

Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that our persistent placement of adverbs before 
{'e'} in SAO constructions when the adverb is to be applied to the second verb 
has no actual support in canon. I've consistently looked for it and I've never 
seen an example of <sentence - adverb - 'e' - sentence>. The very few examples 
we've seen have all been <adverb - sentence - 'e' - sentence>.

Meanwhile, if you read the grammar section in TKD on SAO, it sure sounds like 
the adverb ought to go immediately before the {'e'}, since the two sentences 
joined by 'e' are supposed to be grammatically independent of each other. It 
would be strange indeed for the adverb to become so remote from the verb to 
which it is applied. It doesn't make sense according the the grammar described 
to us.

This is one of those areas of the grammar I feel a bit bad about and I'd feel a 
lot better if Okrand either used it the way we do, or if he explained to us 
more explicitly why we are supposed to use it the way he has used it, giving us 
methods, for example, for using different adverbs for each of the two verbs. In 
other words, how would we say, "I alone insist that you to leave immediately!"?

Of course, that is very close to the unanswered question about how to handle 
multiple adverbs, anyway. This was less of a problem when a lot of adverbial 
function was reserved for suffixes and there were very few adverbs, but in more 
recent years, Okrand has focussed on giving us more adverbs, increasing the 
likelihood that we'll want to use multiple adverbs.

Since many adverbial meanings are carried by verb suffixes and you can't use 
multiple suffixes of the same type, does the adverb as a separate word work 
similarly, as if all adverbs are essentially of one "Type", and only one can be 


> SuStel
> Stardate 2017.5


Back to archive top level