Re: adverbs

[Stephan Schneider <sts@stephan-schneider.net>]

DloraH:

>  > so <nuq> isn't an adverb.
>
>If I were to give it a label other than "question-word" I would use "pronoun",
>because it goes in place of the noun it's representing.

interesting.

>  > >>>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?
>
>Well, your use of tagha' is correct.  The only ghol I know of is a noun.

i don't remember what i wanted to write. but "ghol" was not what i intended.

>  > >><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.

ehm... well...
it's both an adverb and a noun. in <naDev yIghoS> <naDev> is a noun. 
but it can be an adverb in other sentences, like <naDev jIQong>.

<batlh> is also both an adverb and a noun. if there was a suffix to 
make <batlh> an adverb, it would be forbidden to use it, probably 
(just like it's forbidden ot say <naDevDaq>).

>DloraH, BG