tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 27 13:47:08 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: adverbials
> i don't understand why MO used the word "adverbial" for something
> that is known and understood as "adverb".
Known and understood by us linguistic hobbyist. But if Hollywood actors are
anything like my friends and co-workers, they don't know what and adverb is,
they don't know what a locative is, some of them know what a pronoun is.
> >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.
CAN BE a locative. "locative" isn't a type of word; it describes how a word
is being used. As a noun, /naDev/ can be a subject, an object, or because
it is a physical place, it can be a locative.
> >TKD p55 and p17? lists the adverbials.
> >>>>
(snip)
> ><<<
>
> do you have The complete KD in this format?
Doesn't everyone? :)
I also have KGT.
For those that have arrived in the past few months and didn't see my
posting, I created an index for KGT, so you can easily look up how a word is
used.
http://www2.rpa.net/~cheesbro/kgt.txt
Since this is useless without the book, there is no copyright infringement.
> 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.
Then keep doing it. :)
> > >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 a noun.
It CAN be USED IN the header.
And as I said earlier:
> >there is no offical word to label this group; many of us use "header".
TKD says there are nouns, verbs, and leftovers. The leftovers can be broken
down into Pronouns, Numbers, Conjunctions, Adverbials, Exclamations, Names
and address.
Those are the types of words.
Nouns can be used as subjects or objects. Some words can be used as
time-stamps; some (usually with the -Daq suffix) can act as locatives.
There are a lot of rules about the words that come before the
Object-Verb-Subject group. If something isn't an object, verb or subject,
what is it? It might be an adverbial, it might be a time-stamp, it might be
a locative, it might be something else, like a word with -vaD. Sometimes
people want to refer to this complex mess collectively. TKD doesn't supply
such a term. If the OVS is the "body" of the sentence, then perhaps we can
refer to all that stuff that comes before it as "header".
/naDev/, a noun, can show up in the body of the sentence, being used as a
subject or object, or it can show up before that (in the header area) used
as a locative.
/ram/ "night" is a noun. It can be used in the body of the sentence as a
subject or object, or it can show up before that (in the header area) used
as a time-stamp.
The noun /batlh/ can be a subject or object.
The adverbial /batlh/ can only be used as an adverbial, showing up before
the OVS body (in the header area).
> > >>"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.
But the two descriptions above don't produce the same sentences.
> 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/.
We don't use "header" as a subclass of chuvmey. The so called "header" is
the area that comes before the Object-Verb-Subject. Some of the chuvmey
only show up in this "header" area. Some chuvmey can be objects or
subjects. Some chuvmey, like numbers, can show up in the body with the
subject or object, or it can show up in the "header" area as part of a
locative, or time-stamp, etc.
(** the following requires a fixed-width font)
wa'Hu' Qe'Daq nom yaS qIp HoD
"Yesterday in the restaurant the captain quickly hit the officer."
|- - - h e a d e r a r e a - - -| |- - b o d y a r e a - -|
| | | |
time-stamp | locative | adverbial | | object | verb | subject |
| | | | | | |
wa'Hu' Qe'Daq nom yaS qIp HoD
(noun) (noun) (adverbial) (noun) (verb) (noun)
> 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?
What part do you wish to discuss?
DloraH, BG