tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 05 12:09:23 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
Voragh:
>>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.
ter'eS:
>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,
Other than Okrand's explicit statement, that is?
It is worth noting at this point that the concepts expressed
by the English adverbs "here", "there", and "everywhere" are
expressed by nouns in Klingon: {naDev} "hereabouts", {pa'}
"thereabouts", {Dat} "everywhere". These words may perhaps
be translated more literally as "area around here," "area
over there," and "all places," respectively. Unlike other
nouns, these three words are never followed by the locative
suffix [-Daq]." (TKD 27)
>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,
No, it doesn't. What it tells you is that you can have a place-stamp plus
an adverbial in the same verb phrase. We've known that since TKD was
published in 1985.
>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?
Because your assumption is wrong. A=B does not equal C=D. A = B ~ C = D.
If you change the definitions of commonly accepted terms, you can interpret
anything any way you like. ("It all depends on what 'is' means."
<g>) Personally, instead of "functioning adverbs" I like to call them
"introductory phases". Perhaps they're truncated phrases of the "from X to
Y" type:
naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'
Can we get to the Great Hall from here? PK
and
There is an idiomatic expression still heard with reasonable
frequency which makes use of all three cardinal direction
terms: {tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq}. Literally, this means "from
area-southwestward to area-northwestward to area eastward",
but the idiom means "all around, all over, all over the place."
It is used in the same place in a sentence that the noun {Dat}
[Hmm, there's that pesky word "noun" again!]
... "everywhere" might be used, but it is much more emphatic:
tIngvo' 'evDaq chanDaq jIlengpu'
I've traveled all over the place.
A more archaic form of the idiom is {tIngvo' 'evDaq 'evvo'
chanDaq} (literally, "from area-southwestward to area-north-
westward, from area-northwestward to area eastward"), but the
three-word version (without the repetition of {'ev}) has all
but totally replaced it. [st.klingon 11/21/99]
Like it or not, {pa'} is not an adverbial in Okrand's terminology - which
is what we were discussing. If Okrand didn't think it mattered, why did he
go to the trouble of classifying adverbials separately and carefully
labeling them all?
>In other words, I would say that {pIj batlh maSuv} is perfectly legal, by
>analogy with {pa' reH},
At most, all you can say is it *may* be legal.
>even though we have no canon example of it.
And after twenty one years why do you think that is, then?
To summarize: We have many examples with TIME STAMP + ADVERBIAL, PLACE
STAMP + ADVERBIAL and even TIME STAMP + PLACE STAMP + ADVERBIAL, but no
example of ADVERBIAL + ADVERBIAL together in a sentence. Why this is so is
not known.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons