tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 30 04:05:12 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.
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.
toH...
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
>used.
>http://www2.rpa.net/~cheesbro/kgt.txt
>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)
beautiful.
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/
<header>.
i would have liked to understand this earlier, but there weren't any
explanations in tkd.
>DloraH, BG
tulwI',
sts.