<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/9/2019 11:16 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOuaz=HuB+-Dabf=e6-Xe+vsT9_Rv1Aw+i=zy5Lc5M8eWA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:51
AM SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name"
moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">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.<br>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>In general, I go by this formula:</p>
<p><time elements> <adverbials and syntactic noun
phrases> <objects> <verb>
<subjects></p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default">What do you mean by "syntactic noun
phrases"? Things with Type 5 noun suffixes?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, or those nouns that are inherently locative. Type 5 suffixes
are "syntactic markers."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOuaz=HuB+-Dabf=e6-Xe+vsT9_Rv1Aw+i=zy5Lc5M8eWA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"> 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:<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"
class="gmail_default"><question words> <type-5 noun
phrases> <time elements> <adverbials>
<object> <verb> <subject></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Let's see...</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>DaHjaj SuvwI''e' jIH</b><i> Today I am a warrior. </i>(TKW,
KGT)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This one has a type 5'd noun after a time element. One could
conceivably argue that <b>DaHjaj SuvwI''e'</b> is meant to be a
noun-noun construction, <i>today's warrior,</i> but I doubt this.
Of course, there's no OVS in this sentence.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>reH HIvje'lIjDaq 'Iwghargh Datu'jaj</b><i> May you always
find a bloodworm in your glass.</i> (PK)<br>
<i></i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS</b><i> The fire
is always hotter on someone else's face.</i> (PK)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also unambiguous and not a toast, and we haven't heard anything
about special grammar for replacement proverbs.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>vaj loghDaq lenglaHtaH Humanpu'</b><i> [Therefore humans
continue to be able to travel in space.]</i> (Skybox 99)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No appeal to special grammar at all. The adverbial clearly
precedes the locative.</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOuaz=HuB+-Dabf=e6-Xe+vsT9_Rv1Aw+i=zy5Lc5M8eWA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The question really is, can an <b>-'e'</b> 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 <b>-'e'</b> gets
interpreted strictly within the relative clause. But I have no
proof of that.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG84SOuaz=HuB+-Dabf=e6-Xe+vsT9_Rv1Aw+i=zy5Lc5M8eWA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote"> 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.}</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p><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>