tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 01 07:39:49 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: KLBC

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected])

• From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: KLBC
• Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 07:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=S8wpnNgDEgIl/T1+PPLdrorglLiiswYc2/HtA+KTwjbioQTu0iwNkEgw9X4nUXySx7HetMifi0qcLFeXj4NFxgAiQ+rK/90Y+g0lkLlQN0lF8Aw78H0peN06Bw2E+91umDIdmDyipKM4aO9YFCb2sbTYJkJjwhitfHC7NdHSjtA= ;
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

--- QeS 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote:

> ghItlhpu' ter'eS, ja':
> >Sometimes the adverbs augment each other, as in
> {DaHjaj po
> >jIvum} 'I get up this morning' (literally 'today in
> the morning'.
> 
> {vum} is "to work", not "to get up". The verb "get
> up" is {Hu'}.
>

HIvqa' veqlargh.
 
> Also, {DaHjaj} is not an adverb, but a noun, and
> {DaHjaj po} is a noun-noun 
> construction acting as a time stamp: "today's
> morning". I'm not sure that 
> true adverbs can modify each other; I know of no
> canon evidence either way.

I never said that adverbs modify each other; I said
that you can have multiple adverbs each modifying
the verb.

I would also argue that all timestamps are adverbial
in function, regardless of the original part of
speech of their elements. I also understand
{DaHjaj po} to be two separate timestamps: 'today'
and 'in the morning'.

-- ter'eS

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: KLBC
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: KLBC
    • From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: Suq (verb)
• Next by Date: Re: {Qong} and other unattested nouns
• Previous by thread: Re: KLBC
• Next by thread: Re: KLBC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level