Re: adverbs

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

>From: "Stephan Schneider" <sts@stephan-schneider.net>
>>  >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.
>
>toH!  DaH SayajchoH.

maj.

>I see where you're going with this.  I think what got me stuck was the fact
>that the words /batlh/, /Do'/, and /motlh/ are listed once as words as a
>"part of speech," and then also listed as "part of sentence" with apparently
>equality.  But I could certainly accept the idea that it's really the same
>word, acting in more than one way.
>
>It really tends to become a game of naming things, though.  You can choose
>the terminology that suits your purpose (but be sure to be clear to
>everyone, as they'll be expecting the terminology used in TKD!).

i'll try to stick to it. but you (the others) already use 
terminology, which i simply attempt to immitate (without looking it 
up in TKD).

>/naDev/ is an adverbial in the sense that it modifies the verb semantically,
>but it's a noun as a part of speech.  And when you look up /naDev/ in the
>dictionary, you're going to find "(n)," not "(adv)."

the german dictionairy doesn't use "(n)". likely, when there is no 
comment, it's intended that it's a noun.

>  > anyway, it's not a rule that you can add <-Ha'> to an adverbial.
>
>Err . . . well, certain adverbials are known to take /-Ha'/.  Or, at least,
>there are certain adverbials that end in /-Ha'/ that happen to be the exact
>opposite of the same adverbial without /-Ha'/.  (HolQeD Vol. 4, No. 4, p.
>11)  When I use the word "adverbial" here, I am referring to those words
>that Marc Okrand calls "adverbials" in TKD, not to the notion of "anything
>that modifies the verb."

me too (i guess).
there is <batlh> and <batlhHa'>, but it's no rule that an adverbial 
like <batlh> can take <Ha'> (that's what i understood when i red the 
messages concerning this). anyway!

>  > so is there a difference between "<naDev> doesn't take <-Daq>" and
>>  "<naDev> is a noun that can act like an adverbial"?
>
>I think that /naDev/ doesn't take /-Daq/ because /naDev/ doesn't take
>/-Daq/, and therefore the two statements are unrelated.  Even when you have
>/naDevvo'/, it's still acting in an adverbial fashion, in that it modifies
>the action of the verb.

yes. ok. so...
i think you're right. but i like this explanation better:
<naDev> is a noun. you can say <naDevvo'> which is an adverbial. as 
<naDev> can also be an adverbial meaning *<naDevDaq>, there is no 
need to say *<naDevDaq> anymore.
maybe MO should talk one more with Maltz. ;)

as far as i know, there is no suffix to indicate "with". that's why i 
cannot say "with honor" like this: *<batlhwItlh> (assuming that 
*<-wItlh> would be "with"). anyway, if there was something like 
*<-witlh> it would be certainly "forbidden" to use it with <batlh>, 
as <batlh> (noun) can immediatly act as an adverbial.

never liked to split hairs so much. ;)

sts.