tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 01 14:34:18 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 14:34:01 -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=d8DI1AbHIzDU1pFfNiT8AQIFHh5dvPJ3fVicdTVw4N5+15iMjxHGelIOh1t/U8mtCSj1we+y0Gt0+zUeLdjYbExftBpmKyTNZxnERz1pe/yzVePkZ6EW4rnr57ne1fpIYLOD9v5b6iAFP63PFMEHzBhgai8CzhfB8AxZ+MpXraI= ;
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

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

> ghItlhpu' ter'eS, ja':
> >I never said that adverbs modify each other; I said
> that you can have
> >multiple adverbs each modifying the verb.
> 
> bIja': "Sometimes the adverbs augment each other".
> qayajHa''a'?

choyajHa'bej.

> 
> >I would also argue that all timestamps are
> adverbial in function, 
> >regardless
> >of the original part of speech of their elements.
> 
> I agree on that count.
> 
> ja'taH:
> >I also understand {DaHjaj po} to be two separate
> timestamps: 'today'
> >and 'in the morning'.
> 
> cha' DoS DIqIp. In a post to the MSN newsgroup,
> Okrand gave the following 
> phrases, and glossed them as English genitives,
> which implies to me that he 
> intended them to be noun-noun constructions rather
> than pairs of separate 
> adverbials:
> 
> "DaHjaj ram "tonight" (literally "today night" or
> "today's night")
> DaHjaj po "this morning" (literally "today morning"
> or "today's morning")
> DaHjaj pov "this afternoon" (literally "today
> afternoon" or "today's 
> afternoon")
> DaHjaj DungluQ "this noon" (literally "today noon"
> or "today's noon")
> DaHjaj ramjep "this midnight" (literally "today
> midnight" or "today's 
> midnight")
> DaHjaj pemjep "this midday" (literally "today
> midday" or "today's midday")"
> 
> (Okrand to MSN newsgroup, 29 June 1997)
> 

OK, so I was wrong on that point. The compound is
still adverbial.  It just doesn't say anything about
whether two adverbs can modify the same verb.

-- ter'eS

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

• Prev by Date: Re: KLBC
• Next by Date: Re: Hamlet
• Previous by thread: Re: KLBC
• Next by thread: Re: KLBC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level