tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 25 09:35:53 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: adverbials

>so i try to ask in a more correct way:
>/naDev/ is a noun (part of speech) and can be, as part of a klingon 
>sentence, be a header. "linguistically speaking" it can be an 
>adverbial (more precisely a "locative adverbial"). qar'a'?

Locatives are not adverbials.

When using english to discuss english grammar, adverbials are all that stuff at 
the beginning of the sentence that isn't the Object, Verb, or Subject.
When using english to discuss klingon grammar, there is no offical word to 
label this group; many of us use "header".

(english), an adverb is a specific type of word that can only be used in the 
adverbial fashion.
(klingon), in TKD this type of word is labeled "adverbial".

(english), locatives and adverbs are types of adverbials.
(klingon), locatives and adverbials are types of "headers".

>>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.
>but the same thing you said about /batlh/ is valid for /naDev/!

Why is it valid?

 batlh			honor (n)
 batlh			honored, with honor (adv)

 naDev			here, hereabouts (n)

naDev is not listed as (adv).

>/naDevvo'/ is a noun with a suffix, and this very combination is an 

When discussing english grammar, "from here" is an adverbial.
When discussing klingon grammar, naDevvo' is a locative (header).

>ask MO for me if /naDev/ is both a noun and an adverbial, which means 
>that /naDev/ can act as an adverbial without taking any suffix - the 
>same way that /batlh/ (noun) can act as an adverbial without taking 
>any suffix.

TKD p55 and p17? lists the adverbials.
5.4. Adverbials

These words usually come at the beginning of a sentence and
describe the manner of the activity.

    {batlh} <with honor, in an honored fashion>
    {bong} <by accident, accidentally, not intentionally>
    {chaq} <perhaps>
    {chIch} <on purpose, purposely>
    {DaH} <now>
    {Do'} <with luck, luckily>
    {loQ} <slightly, a little bit>
    {nom} <fast, quickly>
    {not} <never>
    {pay'} <suddenly>
    {pIj} <often>
    {QIt} <slowly>
    {reH} <always>
    {rut} <sometimes>
    {tugh} <soon>
    {vaj} <thus, in that case, so, accordingly, then>
    {wej} <not yet>

5.4. Adverbials

The list of adverbials given in the original dictionary can be
expanded by the addition of the following:

    {ghaytan} <likely>
    {jaS} <differently>
    {nIteb} <alone, acting alone, on one's own>
    {pe'vIl} <forcefully>
    {SIbI'} <immediately>

naDev is not listed.
batlh is listed.

>"/naDev/ (noun); */naDevDaq/ (wrong); use /naDev/ instead of 
>/naDevDaq" = "/naDev/ (noun); /naDev/ (adverbial)"

Why do you say naDev is a noun?  Because TKD says it is.
Why do you say naDev is an adverbial?   ?

>i didn't want to give /naDev/ any /-Ha'/ or /-Daq/. i just wanted to 
>call it an adverbial. ...

Why?  TKD doesn't.

>so why /naDev/ is not an adverbial?

Because TKD doesn't list it as such.

>>"It is worth noting at this point that the concepts expressed by the 
>>English adverbs here, there, and everywhere are expressed by nouns 
>>in Klingon: naDev hereabouts, pa' thereabouts, Dat everywhere. These 
>>words may perhaps be translated more literally as "area around 
>>here," "area over there," and "all places," respectively. Unlike 
>>other nouns, these three words are never followed by the locative 
>>suffix [-Daq]." (TKD 27)
>which makes no difference to: "these three words can act like 
>adverbials without taking the locative suffix [-Daq]."

There is a difference.  
TKD says they are nouns and no matter how they are being used, they do not 
take -Daq.
You said they can be adverbials and the -Daq isn't necessary when they are used 
that way.

>>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."

No, an adverbial and a locative are two different things.
Adverbials and locatives both fall into the group that we refer to as "headers".

naDev is a noun.
Klingon has "nouns" "verbs", and "everything else".
These "other words" can be broken down into smaller groups.
  5. Other Kinds of Words                        51
    5.1. Pronouns                                51
    5.2. Numbers                                 52
    5.3. Conjunctions                            55
    5.4. Adverbials                              55
    5.5. Exclamations                            57
    5.6. Names and address                       58

Remember, MO wrote TKD for non-linguistic actors.
Forget what you know about the english definitions 
of "adverbial", "adverb", "locative", etc.
When discussing klingon, learn the definitions of the terminology by the 
examples given in TKD.
If it makes it easier, remove all words of terminology and replace them with 
mathmatical variables X, Y, Z, with no definitions attached to them.

Did this help?

DloraH, BG

Back to archive top level