Re: adverbs

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

lab SuStel:

>From: "Stephan Schneider" <sts@stephan-schneider.net>
>>  >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>.
>
>You're right that /naDev/ is sometimes (often?) not the object of a
>sentence, as in your /naDev jIQong/ example.  However, it's still a noun.
>It might be said to be acting adverbially, in that it modifies the context
>of the verb, but it's still a noun.

as agnieszka wrote, the part of speech and the part of sentence are 
two different things (this was very enlightening, thank you, 
agnieszka).
so <naDev> can be a noun (part of speech), but it can act as an 
adverbial (part of sentence).
likely also <batlh> is a noun that can act as an adverbial, but not 
every noun can do so, and MO had to indicate this capability of being 
an adverbial in TKD.

>  > <batlh> is also both an adverb and a noun.
>
>Notice that /batlh/ has two listings in TKD: as a noun and as an adverbial.
>/naDev/ has only one (a noun).  Whereas /naDev/ is always a noun, /batlh/ is
>either a noun or an adverbial, depending on how you use it.

yes.
the question i wanted to ask was if the rule that <naDev> is a noun 
that cannot take <-Daq> is equal to the rule that <naDev> can act 
like an adverbial. (can <naDev> take <-vo'>?)

>Most of the time, this distinction isn't important.  But we can be pretty
>sure that while /batlhHa'/ is perfectly valid, */naDevHa'/ is not.

<naDevHa'> would be semantically ... difficult (but this way you 
could say something like "this is not here" (john lennon): <naDev taH 
naDevHa'> :) ).

anyway, it's not a rule that you can add <-Ha'> to an adverbial.

so is there a difference between "<naDev> doesn't take <-Daq>" and 
"<naDev> is a noun that can act like an adverbial"?

sts.