<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The few canon examples we have fit this model. There is no canon example that breaks it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m just sayin’...</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br class=""><br class="">rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 17, 2019, at 6:26 AM, De'vID <<a href="mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" class="">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:28, Will Martin <<a href="mailto:willmartin2@mac.com" class="">willmartin2@mac.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class="">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. <br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all" class=""><div class="">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}. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">{chaq tugh nuHIv} (I don't know when the enemy will attack us; perhaps it is soon)</div><div class="">{tugh chaq nuHIv} (I know the enemy will act soon; perhaps they will attack us)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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").</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-- <br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">De'vID</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>