tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 30 04:05:12 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[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.

yes. it doesn't matter that much. but he didn't have to confuse us 
about adverbials and adverbs in klingon and english.

>  > >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.


but what i wanted to say is clear?

>  > do you have The complete KD in this format?
>Doesn't everyone?  :)
>I also have KGT.

lucky you. well, i haven't. :(
didn't type it down, yet. ;)

>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
>Since this is useless without the book, there is no copyright infringement.

i'm going to look it up.

>  > >  >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".

so i should not have said "is a header" but "can be used in the header". ok.

>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.

so obviously /-Daq/ changes something that was to be used as 
subject-object into something that is to be used in the header. this 
is not so easy to say. it would be shorter to say that /-Daq/ turns a 
noun into a header, but that's not correct... it turns a sobject into 
a header... how do you say this?

>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).

so i cannot use the noun /batlh/ in the header area, wheras i can use 
the noun /ram/ in the header area?
tell me, you don't like to see it this way, neither, do you?

>  > >  >>"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
>d> 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.

please prove it. i don't see the difference.

>  > 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)


so, referring to what i wrote earlier, /-Daq/ turns a body part into 
a header part. ok?

/batlh/ can be a header part or a body part.
/ram/ can be a header part or a body part.
/naDev/ can be a header part or a body part.

>  > 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?

suffixes. for example, they select the noun from a body to have a new 
bodypart: /Qong yaS/ <body> -> /Qongbogh yaS/ <bodypart>. or they can 
turn a body into a header: /Qong yaS/ <body> -> /Qongchugh yaS/ 

i would have liked to understand this earlier, but there weren't any 
explanations in tkd.

>DloraH, BG


Back to archive top level