<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/28/2020 9:22 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLXPpKm7PnkRZaGkdYB+Zxk0799f4jD7pPmCGNqi7+GdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I have no problem at all with allowing
qatlh and chay', which work just like adverbials
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I'm afraid I can't understand this. Why do the {qatlh} and {chay'}
work like adverbials ? How can a question word work like an adverb ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>In general linguistic terminology, an adverbial is a word or
phrase that modifies a verb is done. <b>chay'</b> asks how a verb
is done. Describing how a verb is done is adverbial. <b>qatlh</b>
is a little less obvious, but when you describe the reason
something is done, that's also modifying the verb.</p>
<p>Since <b>chay'</b> and <b>qatlh</b> relate to adverbial
concepts in general linguistic terms, it's not a stretch to
suppose they resemble the class of Klingon words that Federation
linguists call adverbials, at least in their placement.</p>
<p>Remember that to Klingon linguists, these are all just <b>chuvmey.</b>
They don't make these deep distinctions. And non-OVS elements tend
to just get thrown in the soup of words at the front anyway.</p>
<p>I'm not saying this is absolutely true, just that I wouldn't find
it unreasonable to place <b>chay'</b> or <b>qatlh</b> in a
sentence according to the same logic that you would place any
adverbial.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLXPpKm7PnkRZaGkdYB+Zxk0799f4jD7pPmCGNqi7+GdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Even if the {chay'} and {qatlh} can indeed follow a noun marked with {-'e'}..
1. Is there a rule prohibiting their being placed before it? Is there
a rule which forbids us writing: {qatlh 'avwI''e' Dachotpu'?}?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLXPpKm7PnkRZaGkdYB+Zxk0799f4jD7pPmCGNqi7+GdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The only issue which I can think of, is that when we write {'avwI''e
qatlh Dachotpu'?} the translation goes "as for the guard, why did you
murder him?". But if we write {qatlh 'avwI''e' Dachotpu'?} then the
meaning becomes "why did you murder *the guard*?". i.e. instead of the
"as for.." we have an emphasis.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>The rule from the TKD addendum lets you "front" objects marked
with <b>-'e',</b> put them before adverbials. They apparently
remain objects, at least as far as the wording of TKD goes. That
means they still represent focus, not topic. However, I bet it's
the similarity between topic and focus that lets one do this
fronting in the first place.</p>
<p>Basically, <b>'avwI''e' qatlh Dachotpu'</b> could be interpreted
either way.</p>
<p>This is an area of grammar we don't have clear information on, so
you're not going to get a satisfying answer.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLXPpKm7PnkRZaGkdYB+Zxk0799f4jD7pPmCGNqi7+GdQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">2. What happens when the question word is {ghorgh} or {nuqDaq}?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><b>ghorgh</b> and <b>nuqDaq</b> also play adverbial-like roles.
In <b>wa'leS mamej</b><i> We leave tomorrow,</i> the <b>wa'leS</b>
is a noun, but it is playing an adverbial role in the general
linguistic sense. It modifies the verb. It is not what Federation
linguists classify as a Klingon adverbial, but the role it plays
IS adverbial.<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>