[tlhIngan Hol] replacing a missing adverb

mayqel qunen'oS mihkoun at gmail.com
Sun Apr 12 06:50:26 PDT 2020

Often I've wondered, "why klingon doesn't have an adverbializer" ?

Recently, I read in a style-writing guide, something very interesting with
regards to the use of adverbs in fse.

According to the article, when you use adverbs in fse, what you're actually
doing is "telling" the reader what's happening. But if you want your
writing to be more direct, then it's preferable to "show" to your reader,
instead of just "tell" him. Meaning, that instead of relying on an adverb,
you need to describe what that adverb actually tries to convey.


She looked at him lustfully.

Suppose we had the klingon word+adverbializer to say *exactly* this

{adverb, leghta'}

Now, suppose we wrote the sentence, by describing the meaning of the adverb

{loDvam leghpu'; leghpu'DI', SIbI', nom joqchoHpu' tIqDaj, porghDaj
jaltaHvIS, 'ej ngaghchuq 'e' jalchoHDI'..}

The second way is more direct, than just throwing in an adverb at the
beginning of a sentence, and game over. At least that's what that article
was saying..

Now, whether this is the reason, or one of the reasons why klingon doesn't
have an adverbializer, this is another story.

~ mayqel qunen'oS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200412/3e534e6d/attachment.html>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list