tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 15 04:25:37 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: adverbs
>>>net
>>
>>why <net> is an adverb? it seems like a noun to me.
>
>/net/ is explicitly called a pronoun in TKD.
so <net> isn't an adverb.
>
>>>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.
so <nuq> isn't an adverb.
>>>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.)
so i can say: <tagha'.> (exclamation) and <tagha' bIghol.> (sentence
with adverb) right?
>>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).
hm. would there be any difference if these words were be called
adverbs? it would be easier to remember than that they are nouns that
cannot take type 5 suffixes.
sts.