tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 16 15:45:56 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: adverbs
lab SuStel:
>From: "Stephan Schneider" <[email protected]>
>> >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.