Re: adverbs

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

> > >><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.
>
>How would a location (pa, naDev, Dat) be used as an adverb?
>naDev yIghoS
>naDev is the object of ghoS.

Actually, in English, 'here', 'there', 'everywhere', and 'today' *are* 
considered adverbs.  I suppose the rationale  for so labelling them is that 
they modify the action of the verb by providing a location or time frame.

I think what he's trying to say is that it's eaiser for him to think of them 
as adverbials because they come at the beginning of the sentence (or at 
least precede the OVS phrase), and because they don't take suffixes - at 
least, not -Daq; perhaps they can take other suffixes.  Voragh?.  While it's 
true that three of them can be the object of a verb of motion, usually they 
are neither subject nor object.

"It is interesting that {-Ha'} always occurs right after the verb. It is not 
known why Klingon grammarians insist on calling it a rover. It was felt best 
not to argue with Klingon tradition, however, so {-Ha'} is here classified 
as a rover." (TKD, p. 48)

I suggest the same advice be applied to these words as well.

>DloraH, BG




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx