<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/2/2016 2:14 AM, PICHLMANN
Christoph wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:08208E3C873A184F9FEA641916F1DBC43624A988@ATTSMBX01.agrana.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Klingon grammarians classify Klingon words into only those three
categories, yes. Federation grammarians divide the <b>chuvmey</b>
up into subcategories to assist understanding. Both ways are just
systems of organizing our understanding of the language and are
not prescriptive.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote
cite="mid:08208E3C873A184F9FEA641916F1DBC43624A988@ATTSMBX01.agrana.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.)</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>An adverb is not a verb; it is a leftover.<br>
</p>
<p>Wikipedia defines an <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverb">adverb</a> as "a
word that modifies a verb, adjective, another adverb, determiner,
noun phrase, clause, or sentence." It defines an <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverbial">adverbial</a> as
"a word (an adverb) or a group of words (an adverbial phrase or an
adverbial clause) that modifies or tells us something about the
sentence or the verb." Adverbs are a subset of adverbials; the
latter has a broader meaning. <i>The Klingon Dictionary</i> uses
the word <i>adverbial</i> throughout, not <i>adverb, </i>with
two exceptions: <b>naDev, pa',</b> and <b>Dat</b> are nouns in
Klingon but adverbs in English; and Klingon adverbials are called
adverbs in section 6.7 of the Addendum.</p>
<p>When Federation grammarians group some of the <b>chuvmey</b>
into adverbials, they're saying that these are the words that
modify the meaning of the verb or sentence, or can sometimes be
used as standalone exclamations. There is an exceptional
adverbial, <b>neH</b> <i>merely, only</i> that modifies both
verbs and nouns, and does so in a unique position (after); <i>TKD</i>
admits calling it an adverbial is awkward. The rest of the
adverbials modify the sentence by going before the
object-verb-subject or <b>law'/puS </b>structure.</p>
<p>Klingon grammarians obviously recognize the adverbial function;
they simply don't give it a name. Some of the <b>chuvmey,</b>
they say, act this way. <i>TKD</i> speculates that Klingon
grammarians lump all the <b>chuvmey</b> together for expediency.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote
cite="mid:08208E3C873A184F9FEA641916F1DBC43624A988@ATTSMBX01.agrana.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Unfortunately, both Klingonska and <<boQwI'>> only say "adverb" <span class="moz-smiley-s2" title=":-("><span>:-(</span></span></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Labeling them as adverbials would have been better.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>