[tlhIngan Hol] ordering of multiple adverbials

[Will Martin]

What you say is very interesting, but realize that in languages, grammar happens and then linguists and grammarians observe it happening and make up rules to describe it.

It would have been quite possible for linguists to have never noticed that Klingon verb suffixes are categorized into types and their order is forced to fit the sequence dictated by the type number. This was occurring likely for centuries before someone started codifying the rules of grammar. Now, we know about verb suffix types in Klingon.

So, how do we know that since the use of multiple adverbials is so uncommon, the linguists simply haven’t yet noticed the pattern of adverbial types? This could very well be an as yet undiscovered rule of grammar in Klingon.

The few canon examples we have fit this model. There is no canon example that breaks it.

I’m just sayin’...

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Sep 17, 2019, at 6:26 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:28, Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com <mailto:willmartin2 at mac.com>> wrote:
> It seems almost as if there were types of adverbs similar to the way Klingon has types of verb suffixes. {vaj} could be adverbial Type 1, {chaq} adverbial Type 2, {tugh} Type 3, and {batlh} Type 4. You probably can’t have two of the same Type, and you can have zero or one of each type in any verb clause. 
> 
> We could then look at other adverbials and argue over which one belongs to which type and have a good old grammatical battle over it.
> 
> I think that there's a natural ordering imposed by the meaning you want to express in a specific sentence, but I don't think the order is fixed in general, or that you can't have two of the same type. For example, it seems clear to me that {vaj} and {chaq} should typically come before anything else, but I'm not sure that you can't say either {pe'vIl tugh nuHIv} or {tugh pe'vIl nuHIv} depending on what you want to emphasise between {tugh} and {pe'vIl}. 
> 
> I'm also not sure that {vaj} has to come before {chaq}. I think {vaj chaq...} "In that case, perhaps..." and {chaq vaj...} "Perhaps, in that case..." are both sensible constructions, depending on whether the consequence is conditional or not. 
> 
> And even though one adverbial may typically or frequently precede another because it's the more common situation, I don't think the other order is ruled out when it's warranted. 
> 
> {chaq tugh nuHIv} (I don't know when the enemy will attack us; perhaps it is soon)
> {tugh chaq nuHIv} (I know the enemy will act soon; perhaps they will attack us)
> 
> The combination {chaq tugh...} is probably much more common, but I can see {tugh chaq...} making sense in some specific contexts, or for emphasis ("SOON the enemy may attack us").
> 
> -- 
> De'vID
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190917/14e941d2/attachment.htm>