[tlhIngan Hol] Order of adverbials and type-5'ed nouns

[SuStel]

On 7/9/2019 11:16 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:51 AM SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     TKD doesn't make it clear which words have precedence for the
>     beginning of the sentence. Section 5.4: adverbials "usually come
>     at the beginning of a sentence." Section 6.1: any noun in the
>     sentence other than subject or object comes "before the object
>     noun." Section 6.4: those three question words "occur at the
>     beginning of the sentence." Addendum section 6.7: time elements
>     come before adverbials. Time elements are only described as the
>     most common sort of element to precede an adverbial, so it's
>     possible that other elements can too, though I couldn't tell you
>     what they might be.
>
>     Canon doesn't appear to be too overly concerned with carefully
>     ordering these elements. I can't offhand think of any notable
>     exceptions to the general rules, but I'm sure there are some
>     interesting bits out there to find. The trouble is that some of
>     the best stuff is poetic in nature, making word order suspect.
>
>     In general, I go by this formula:
>
>     <time elements> <adverbials and syntactic noun phrases> <objects>
>     <verb> <subjects>
>
>     Adverbials tend to float toward the front of the "adverbials and
>     syntactic noun phrases" part of their space, though I don't think
>     this is an absolute. If you always put adverbials before syntactic
>     noun phrases I don't think you'd have any trouble. The three
>     "beginning of the sentence" question words are essentially
>     adverbial in nature, and should be counted as adverbials for the
>     purpose of sentence order.
>
> What do you mean by "syntactic noun phrases"? Things with Type 5 noun 
> suffixes?

Yes, or those nouns that are inherently locative. Type 5 suffixes are 
"syntactic markers."


> My interpretation: The addendum 6.7 says the adverbial precedes the 
> object-verb-subject construction, so my usual formula is to put it 
> just before the OVS, preceded by timestamps and type-5 nouns (which 
> would still put them before the object noun, as per 6.1). Time stamps 
> come after the type-5s so they don't somehow get confused for being 
> part of the noun phrase. I don't lump the question words in with 
> adverbials, so I put those at the very beginning. So my formula is more:
>
> <question words> <type-5 noun phrases> <time elements> <adverbials> 
> <object> <verb> <subject>

I can see how the wording could support this order. I get a strong 
feeling that the time elements have to come first, though. That might 
just be because I've internalized it that way.

Let's see...

    *DaHjaj SuvwI''e' jIH*/Today I am a warrior. /(TKW, KGT)

This one has a type 5'd noun after a time element. One could conceivably 
argue that *DaHjaj SuvwI''e'* is meant to be a noun-noun construction, 
/today's warrior,/ but I doubt this. Of course, there's no OVS in this 
sentence.

    *reH HIvje'lIjDaq 'Iwghargh Datu'jaj*/May you always find a
    bloodworm in your glass./ (PK)
    //

The adverbial precedes the locative. This one is unambiguous. At best 
you could claim some kind of special grammar for toasts not yet 
revealed, but I don't see any evidence for that.

    *reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS*/The fire is always
    hotter on someone else's face./ (PK)

Also unambiguous and not a toast, and we haven't heard anything about 
special grammar for replacement proverbs.

    *vaj loghDaq lenglaHtaH Humanpu'*/[Therefore humans continue to be
    able to travel in space.]/ (Skybox 99)

No appeal to special grammar at all. The adverbial clearly precedes the 
locative.

I'll stop my search there. It's tough to find these because of all the 
possible combinations. I didn't find any so far with syntactic noun 
phrases preceding adverbials, except of course the ones explicitly 
mentioned in the TKD addendum, where you can put an adverbial after a 
topicalized object. But that's an object, not a noun that would have 
come before the OVS structure.


> Here's a related question: Addendum 6.7 says the adverbial can come 
> after the object, if the object has the {-'e'} marker. Would you all 
> say this rule includes situations where the object has an {-'e'} to 
> mark it as the head noun of a relative clause? Something like: {SoSwI' 
> tIchpu'bogh petaQ'e' batlh vIqIp.} "I honorably hit the p'takh who had 
> insulted my mother." As opposed to the usual arrangement, which would 
> be {batlh SoSwI' tIchpu'bogh petaQ'e' vIqIp}, which could be 
> misinterpreted as "I hit the p'takh who had honorably insulted my 
> mother." My confusion is because the {-'e'} applies to the p'takh's 
> role in the relative clause, not the main sentence.

The question really is, can an *-'e'* on the head noun of a relative 
clause also play its syntactic role in the main clause. We don't know. I 
suspect not. I think the *-'e'* gets interpreted strictly within the 
relative clause. But I have no proof of that.


> After that question, a related one: What if the object noun were the 
> object of its relative clause? Like {SoSwI''e' tIchpu'bogh petaQ batlh 
> vIHub.}

I don't think it makes a difference. I don't think it works in either 
case, but if it did I think it would work as subject or object.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190709/be5e021d/attachment.htm>