tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 05 10:08:40 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
Voragh:
> >>European scholars (particularly Erman and Gardiner IIRC)
> >>classed these as adverb(ial)s, but the question is: Did
> >>EGYPTIAN grammarians call them "adverbs"? (Indeed, what
> >>is the Egyptian for "adverb"? Or "verb" and "noun" for
> >>that matter?)
lay'tel SIvten:
> > Did Egyptians even study language in any way similar
> > to what we do now? Or like the Sanskrit grammarian did?
ter'eS:
>So it doesn't matter if Klingon grammarians consider a noun-derived
>timestamp to be adverbial (or if
>Klingon grammarians even exist).
We know Klingon grammarians do exist:
By far the bulk of Klingon words are nouns and verbs. There
are a few others which, probably as an expedient, Klingon
grammarians lump together in a group called {chuvmey}
"leftovers". (TKD 51)
It is interesting that {-Ha'} always occurs right after
the verb. It is not known why Klingon grammarians insist
on calling it a rover. It was felt best not to argue with
Klingon tradition, however, so {-Ha'} is here classified
as a rover. (TKD 47f)
Klingon grammarians refer to the rule that governs the use
of pronominal prefixes as the rule of {rom} (literally,
"accord"). Grammarians of Federation Standard and many Earth
languages call the phenomenon "agreement." [...] [KGT 172]
Sometimes words or phrases are coined for a specific occasion,
intentionally violating grammatical rules in order to have an
impact. Usually these are never heard again, though some gain
currency and might as well be classified as slang. Klingon
grammarians call such forms {mu'mey ru'} ("temporary words").
[KGT 176]
>By every definition I know, it functions adverbially. They may call it
>something completely different, and have a completely different
>understanding of how it operates in a sentence, but in human terms, it's
>still an adverbial.
It matters if we are going to study the language on their terms, using
their terms, or on ours. (For comparison, semiticists - some much more
than others - routinely use the terminology of Hebrew and Arabic
grammarians, especially when discussing verbs and nouns.) "Federation
linguist" Marc Okrand tries to do both ("It was felt best not to argue with
Klingon tradition..."), but his comment about {chuvmey} continues:
It is possible to classify the {chuvmey} some-what. (TKD 51)
He then does so using the "Federation Standard" terms pronouns, numbers,
conjunctions, adverbials, exclamations, and names.
Whatever approach you take you can't deny that QeS (or whoever) has indeed
noticed something interesting: It appears that two "adverbials" (i.e.
those items actually labeled as such by Okrand, not including nouns
functioning as time- and place-stamps) can't modify the same verb together
directly, much in the same way that two "qualities" can't modify the same
verb together. Our examples break them up, either by simple repetition or
by adding a brief clause with {'ej}, {-bogh}, etc. Whether this is due to
a previously undocumented grammatical rule, the prevalent favored
rhetorical style, or a sampling anomaly is unknown.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons