adverbials (was: chotwI'/mang)

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

lab SuStel:

>From: "Stephan Schneider" <sts@stephan-schneider.net>
>>  ok, so /naDev/ is no adverbial, but it can be something "similar". so
>>  it seems to me that /naDev/ is a locative (besides of being a noun),
>>  and therefore a chuv anyawy. is /naDev/ a locative header?
>
>(Minor note: as far as we know, /chuv/ is a verb meaning "be left over."
>There is no known noun /chuv/, but there is a noun /chuvmey/ "leftovers.")
>
>/naDev/ isn't a locative noun in and of itself, at least as TKD uses the
>term; its place in the sentence indicates whether it is one or not.  If it's
>not a subject or object, then it's probably acting as a locative.

so it can act like an adverbial.

>naDev Dochvetlh yIqem.
>Bring that thing here.
>(/naDev/ is a locative.)

yes. "/naDev/ is an adverbial."

>Del naDev.
>This place is borning ("Here is boring").
>(/naDev/ is not a locative.)

yes. "/naDev/ is a noun."

>Locatives are usually nouns.  (I can't currently think of any that aren't.)
>But "locative" isn't a part of Klingon speech like noun, verb, and
>"everything else."  You can't say /naDev/ is both noun and an "everything
>else"; it's a noun that happens to mean "here."

and what about /batlh/? /batlh/ is both a noun and a ... ?! i thought 
it was both a noun and an adverbial (therefore a leftover).

what am i missing?

sts.