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

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Tue Jul 9 08:58:31 PDT 2019

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 

    *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 

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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190709/be5e021d/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list