tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 25 06:48:18 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
adverbials (was: chotwI'/mang)
lab SuStel:
>From: "Stephan Schneider" <[email protected]>
>> 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.