Re: adverbs

["Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <sangqar@hotmail.com>]

>>For my dictionary, I made a list of adverbs.
>>Yes, I know in Klingon they are treated as chuvmey, but in english, they 
>>are adverbs, so I list them like
>>that :-)

Note that although MO tells us that there are "three basic parts of speech 
in KLingon: noun, verb, and everything else", he uses English grammar terms 
when discussing, so this seems appropriate.

>>net
>
>why <net> is an adverb? it seems like a noun to me.

/net/ is explicitly called a pronoun in TKD.

>>nuq
>
>why "nuq"? what kind of word is a question-word? (maybe... a 
>"question-word"?)

MO labels it as a question word in TKD, so that terminology seems 
appropriate.  In English, 'questions words' are generally called 
interrogatives; interrogative pronouns, interrogative adjectives, 
interrogative adverbs, etc.

>>tagha'
>
>is <tagha'> an exclamation? i think that an exclamation is like one frase, 
>it's no adverb. is that right?

tagha' is defnitely an adverbial, but:

Adverbials sometimes occur alone, functioning more or less as exclamations 
(TKD, p.57) (This is the last paragraph in section 5.4 for those of you who 
don't use the English version.)

>i'd like to add:
>
><chaq>

This one's fine.

><Dat>
><DaHjaj>
><naDev>
><pa'>

These are all classified as nouns, actually.  They're some of those tricky 
nouns that are not subjects or objects but don't have a Type 5 suffix.  We 
are told explicitly in TKD that /Dat/, /naDev/, and /pa'/ never take a Type 
5 suffix (p. 27, sec. 3.3.5).


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com