tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 05 10:40:00 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:


> 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.
> 
 
My point is that, understanding time- and place-
stamps to be functional adverbs, and having no
compelling evidence that they are not equivalent
to a true adverb, the {pa' reH} example and the
{pIj...batlh} example cancel each other out. Well,
not really cancel each other out: the {pa' reH}
example tells me that you can have multiple adverbials
in the same verb phrase, and the {pIj...batlh}
example tells me that you can put them in
separate phrases. I can see no functional difference
between {pa'}, {reH}, {pIj} and {batlh}. If A = B =
C = D, and (A B) is allowed and (C and D) is allowed,
then what's the basis for saying (C D) _isn't_
allowed?  In other words, I would say that {pIj
batlh maSuv} is perfectly legal, by analogy with
{pa' reH}, even though we have no canon example of it.

> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons>

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level