tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 27 10:08:27 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: adverbials
lab DloraH:
> >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".
maj.
header, header, header... (i'm trying to memorize.) ;)
>(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".
toH.
well - how come? an english locative is an english adverbial, but a
klingon adverbial is not a klingon locative. that's really unfair. :(
i don't understand why MO used the word "adverbial" for something
that is known and understood as "adverb". so, klingon adverbs don't
exist at all, right?
english adverb -> klingon adverbial -> is a klingon header
english adverbial -> klingon header
> >>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?
>
>TKD:
> batlh honor (n)
> batlh honored, with honor (adv)
>
> naDev here, hereabouts (n)
>
>naDev is not listed as (adv).
ok, let's see a sec...
/batlh/ is a klingon noun. /batlh/ is a klingon adverbial.
/naDev/ is a klingon noun. /naDev/ is a klingon locative.
klingon locatives and klingon adverbials are klingon headers.
so
both /batlh/ and /naDev/ are klingon nouns and klingon headers.
that's the parallel i meant.
> >/naDevvo'/ is a noun with a suffix, and this very combination is an
>>adverbial.
>
>When discussing english grammar, "from here" is an adverbial.
>When discussing klingon grammar, naDevvo' is a locative (header).
ok. (but i was always trying to discuss klingon grammar.)
> >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>
>
>(addendum)
>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>
><<<
do you have The complete KD in this format?
>naDev is not listed.
>batlh is listed.
i made a mistake. i called the klingon header an adverbial, which is
only correct when we discuss english grammar. i stand corrected.
i knew that TKD treats /batlh/ and /naDev/ in different ways. so any
attempt to treat them equal is wrong, as it doesn't match with the
TKD explanation. i just wanted to find a more beautiful way to treat
both /naDev/ and /batlh/ than the TKD one. i know, i'm a very
beginner, but that's why i like to find rules; it's the best way for
me to understand new things.
> >"/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? ?
because my little knowledge about grammar told me that /naDev/ is an adverbial.
now my a bit less little knowledge about klingon grammar tells me
that /naDev/ is a header.
> >i didn't want to give /naDev/ any /-Ha'/ or /-Daq/. i just wanted to
>>call it an adverbial. ...
>
>Why? TKD doesn't.
see above. (because i was used to call these things adverbials or adverbs.)
> >so why /naDev/ is not an adverbial?
>
>Because TKD doesn't list it as such.
yes. but it's a header, even though 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.
and when i add the rule that we always prefer the easier solution
(i.e. using /naDev/ and not */naDevDaq/), then /naDev/ is treated the
same way as in TKD.)
when two descriptions of a language (i.e. grammar) allow the same
producing of sentences, then these descriptions are equal.
> >>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".
ok, ok, ok! it's a _header_. i give up. :)
>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?
unfortunately yes... ;) (thank you very much.)
but TKD doesn't use the word "header" - you already modified the
grammar of TKD recognizing a subclass of the chuvmey. this subclass,
the header, is valid both for /batlh/ and /naDev/.
i think it should be possible to create a more detailed grammar (that
has its focus on the parts of the sentence instead of the part of the
speech). didn't anyone do this before?
>DloraH, BG
tulwI',
sts, B.