[tlhIngan Hol] Adverbs with {-qu'}

[PICHLMANN Christoph]

A slighty off-topic question, but it's something I've considered recently and it fits in here:

We have been told (in TKD, I think? Was it reinforced later, or taken away?) that klingons only use three classes of words:

*) nouns
*) verbs
*) everything else (the "leftovers")

Is this still correct?

I'm asking because an "adverb" is something I'd like to put in with "verbs", but that is because of the name. Would klingons see an adverb as a form of verb, or as <<chuvmey>> that simply "looks and acts" as a verb, but doesn't follow all the rules.

Because if an adverb is considered a verb, shouldn't all verb-affixes be allowed?
But if it's a <<chuvmey>>, then it would make more sense to say that as a rule they don't have any affixes, but for this or that word it is known that it may take this or that suffix. They'd simply be special cases, as any language has.
(Also, it would keep things simple, IMO.)

Unfortunately, both Klingonska and <<boQwI'>> only say "adverb" :-(

Christoph

>Message: 24
>Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:08:19 -0500
>From: SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>
>To: tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org
>Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Adverbs with {-qu'}
>Message-ID: <f6e12bb6-54c0-86de-5172-97fde21f3215 at trimboli.name>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
>On 11/30/2016 12:28 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>>
>> SuStel:
>> > Okrand had recently added
>> >*-Ha'* to an adverbial for the first time
>>
>> So, do we consider this to be for us a license to place {-Ha'}, to 
>> whichever adverbs we wish ?
>>
>
>His general message has been, yes, adverbials can generally use *-Ha',* 
>but there's no absolute guarantee that all of them can do it.
>
>
>> And where do we draw the line ? Why stop at the {-Ha'}, and not 
>> continue to other rovers as well ?
>>
>
>Because Okrand has specifically about and used only *-Ha'.* No other 
>suffix has been used or even hinted at.
>
>
>> If someone writes something which 'oqranD never wrote, we say "don't 
>> do it, it has no precedent". but if there is a precedent, why not act 
>> upon it ?
>>
>
>Precedent and suggestion exists for *-Ha';* it does not exist for any 
>other suffix.
>
>-- 
>SuStel
>http://trimboli.name