tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 03 14:05:12 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

--- Steven Boozer <[email protected]> wrote:

> QeS:
> > >>> I'm not sure that true adverbs can modify each
> other;
> > >>> I know of no canon evidence either way.
> 

[...]

> These points probably disqualify the Radio Times
> example as well.  QeS 
> seems to be right.
> 
> It may be that the way to use two adverbials with
> the same verb is seen in 
> this single example:
> 
>     pIj maSuvpu', batlh maSuvpu' 'ej maQapbejta'!
>     In our many battles, we have fought with honor
> and achieved
>     VICTORY!  (Hallmark)
> 
> Notice that Okrand repeated the verb rather than
> have two adverbials follow 
> each other directly.  Multiple clauses repeating an
> element is fairly 
> common in Klingon sentences, whereas in English such
> repetition would sound 
> awkward and redundant.  

I think one could argue that the Hallmark example
is a bit of rhetorical flourish and not representative
of real speech. OTOH, as I think about it, I can't
come up with too many instances where you'd need
two true adverbs in a row ?{tugh pe'vIl yIvang}.
It wouldn't be too hard to recast that as {tugh
yIvang 'ej pe'vIl (yIvang)}.  In fact, I kind of
like it; it sort of parallels the use of multiple
adjectives with nouns.

But I think having to say {DaHjaj bIr muD 'ej
naDev bIr muD} is going beyond redundancy into
persniketry. It just sounds stupid.  It sounds
like you're describing two different situations
when you are really trying to describe the
weather at a given place and time.

Sorry; this doesn't convince me. Absence of evidence,
etc.  Unless/until Okrand definitively bans
multiple adverbials with a single verb, I will
continue to keep them in my "toolkit".

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level