tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 05 14:18:18 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

adverbials (was Re: KLBC)

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' ter'eS:
> It doesn't matter if Egyptians analyzed their language
> or had a word for 'adverb'.  The point is that we
> moderns can fruitfully apply the concept to the
> language,...

Qo'!  pIm tlhIngan Hol pab, DIvI' Hol pab je.  tlhIngan Hol DapojmeH,  
latlh Hol pab nuHmey DaSovbogh Daqemchugh, chaq tlhIngan Hol pab  
DapojHa'.  We've seen it before -- if you apply an extra-TKD concept  
to your understanding of Klingon, you are likely either to  
unnecessarily restrict or to unjustifiably expand your usage of the  
language.

> so that, for example, we can understand why phrases
> like mk wi Hr wAt "I am on the road" and mk wi ii.kwy
> "I have arrived" are functionally equivalent.

chay' rap mu'tlheghvam?  pImbej tlhamchaj.  rap vangwI' neH.

> So it doesn't matter if Klingon grammarians consider
> a noun-derived timestamp to be adverbial (or if
> Klingon grammarians even exist).  By every definition
> I know, it functions adverbially.

I know one definition which disagrees with you.  It's the one found  
in The Klingon Dictionary, and I believe it to be the only one that  
matters in this context.

> 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.

What makes something an "adverbial" in your book?  More to the point,  
why should your book override what my book (TKD) says is an  
adverbial? :)

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level