I really like this explanation. I’ll only append that rather than at the sentence level, I think adverbials apply to the clause level. It’s tempting to say that they apply primarily to the verb because grammatically, the presence of a verb defines a clause, but you are spot on that the effect of the adverbial is on the entire clause, not just the verb. If you want the effect of an adverbial applying to a specific word, you need to do the extra work to explicitly provide the context, be more verbose, and not expect this grammatical element to just work the way you wished it would work. Also, life is simpler if the adverbial applies to the main clause. If you want it to apply to a dependent clause, you either need sufficient context to draw the listener to that conclusion, or you should make the dependent clause follow the main clause so the placement of the adverbial makes it obvious which clause gets the adverbial. Note that you can’t do that with a {-meH} clause because they always precede the clause they apply to (except when they apply to a noun).

On Mar 16, 2022, at 9:30 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

 On 3/16/2022 9:11 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

...

Suppose I write:

vabDot Dochvam je'qang verengan

There are three possible interpretations based on context:

1. Even a ferengi would be willing to buy this thing 2. A ferengi would be even willing to buy this thing 3. A ferengi would be willing to buy even this thing vabDot: means the thing said is unexpected, surprising, or counterintuitive.

vabDot Dochvam je'qang verengan. It is unexpected, surprising, or counterintuitive that a Ferengi is willing to buy this thing.

...

Now suppose that instead of the adverb {vabDot} we use the adverb {chaq}/{tlhoS}:

chaq/thoS wej qama' HoHpu' wa'maH yaS

Again, in a similar to {vabDot} manner, there are three possible interpretations based on context:

1. Perhaps/almost ten officers killed three prisoners 2. Ten officers perhaps/almost killed three prisoners 3. Ten officers killed perhaps/almost three prisoners chaq: means the thing said might be true.

chaq wej qama' HoHpu' wa'maH yaS. It might be true that ten officers killed three prisoners.

tlhoS: means the thing said is almost, but not quite, true.

tlhoS wej qama' HoHpu' wa'maH yaS. It is almost, but not quite, true that ten officers killed three prisoners.

You're hung up on trying to apply adverbials directly to individual parts of a sentence, but that's not what they're for. It's true that any of those three parts being unexpected, possibly true, or almost true might be what triggers the use of the adverbial, but the sentence doesn't mean any one of those three interpretations. Any of them could have caused the sentence, but you can't go backwards to find the original cause.

...

Of course "perhaps"/"almost" is/are different from "approximately". But the conclusion I'm getting at is that..

We *can* use {chaq} and {tlhoS} with the intention that -if the context's right- they can be understood as applying to the subject/object instead of the verb, the way {vabDot} does.

Right? Adverbials (not including the exceptional neH) don't apply to individual words. They apply to entire clauses. It might be that one given word represents the component that caused you to include the adverbial, but the adverbial doesn't tell you that.

Does a sentence add additional information that is surprising or unexpected? Use vabDot. Does a sentence describe something that only might be true? Use chaq. Does a sentence describe something that almost comes true, but doesn't? Use tlhoS. These words don't tell you which part of the sentence is the cause of the unexpectedness, maybe-ness, or almost-ness, but they do tell you that something was unexpected, maybe true, or almost true.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

No forgiveness necessary. I did not intend to suggest that you had erred. I don’t think you did. I was just being explicit for the benefit of someone who might not have that same understanding. I just wanted to expand on your advice to cover how to handle potential situations where an adverbial could be interpreted to belong to one clause when the intent was for it to apply to a different clause in the same sentence, and how to avoid that by intentionally arranging clauses when the order of the clauses is optional. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Mar 16, 2022, at 11:06 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 3/16/2022 10:21 AM, Will Martin wrote:

...

I really like this explanation.

I’ll only append that rather than at the sentence level, I think adverbials apply to the clause level. Yes, in all Klingon studies, the words sentence and clause are nearly synonymous, and whenever I say "sentence," I really mean "sentence or clause," with the understanding that in Klingon studies, a "clause" is one of the structures described in TKD as basic sentences, subordinate clauses (including relative clauses and purpose clauses), "to be" constructions, comparatives and superlatives, and that sentences can be single clauses or compound clauses as described in TKD as complex sentences.

So you'll forgive me if I routinely compress all that down to "sentence" in exactly the same way TKD does.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org