tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 23 06:26:53 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>From: "Stephan Schneider" <email@example.com>
>> > > naDevHa' chaHtaH 'ej Hol rapHa'qu' jatlh 'ej Qobqu' 'op chaH.
>> > > (they are so far away and speak a very different language, and some
>> > > of them are very dangerous.)
>> >naDev is a noun. -Ha' is a verb suffix.
>> jes, but the noun /naDev/ can act like an adverbial, which sometimes
>> can take /-Ha/ (like /batlh/). /-Ha/ is a rover, isn't it?
>I'm not going to get into the rest of the message; just this part. We'd
>already been discussing /naDev/ and adverbials.
>/naDev/ is a noun. It is not an adverbial. No matter what /naDev/ does, it
>is still a noun, and nouns do not use /-Ha'/.
>Someone (you?) gave a definition of "adverbial" that came out to "any word
>that modifies the verb as an adverb might," or thereabouts. That's nice and
>all, but that's not what Klingon adverbials are. In Klingon, the term
>"adverbial" is applied to a specific subset of the /chuvmey/ (non-nouns,
it wasn't me who gave this definition.
>Furthermore, /-Ha'/ is not exactly an adverbial suffix. Its use on
>adverbials is not predictable: not every adverbial can use it. There was a
>discussion recently about a list of every allowed "adverbial-Ha'." If it's
>not on the list, it's not allowed (so far as we know).
ok... i will try to keep on studing this topic before making further
comments about chuvmey, adverbials and adverbs. anyway, thank you.
>Hopqu' chaH 'ej Hol pImqu' lujatlh, 'ej Qobqu' 'op.
>"They are very far away and speak a very different language, and some of
>them are very dangerous."