First goes the {'Iv}/{chay'}/{nuq} etc, if it's a question. Then the time stamp. Then assume we have an adverbial and a type-5'ed noun. Does the adverbial *have* to precede the type-5'ed noun ? Or does the type-5'ed noun *have* to precede the adverbial ? I think, there is no *definite* answer on this matter, and that it comes down to personal preference. Is this correct, or is there indeed a *definite* answer on the matter ? ~ gjjgkh
On 7/9/2019 9:29 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
First goes the {'Iv}/{chay'}/{nuq} etc, if it's a question.
Then the time stamp.
No, first comes the time element. *'Iv* and *nuq* — and by extension, *nuqDaq* — go in the sentence where the answer would be. It's only *chay', ghorgh,* and *qatlh* that go at the front. And what counts as "front" depends on exactly how complex a sentence Okrand was thinking of when he made the rule.
Then assume we have an adverbial and a type-5'ed noun.
Does the adverbial *have* to precede the type-5'ed noun ? Or does the type-5'ed noun *have* to precede the adverbial ?
I think, there is no *definite* answer on this matter, and that it comes down to personal preference.
Is this correct, or is there indeed a *definite* answer on the matter ?
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. 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. In general, I go by this formula: <time elements> <adverbials and syntactic noun phrases> <objects> <verb> <subjects> 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. So no, there are no definite answers, but there are some hints and trends. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:51 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
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.
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.
In general, I go by this formula:
<time elements> <adverbials and syntactic noun phrases> <objects> <verb> <subjects>
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.
What do you mean by "syntactic noun phrases"? Things with Type 5 noun suffixes? 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: <question words> <type-5 noun phrases> <time elements> <adverbials> <object> <verb> <subject> Although it's possible I might be contradicted by canon. Clearly, we have much to ask Maltz. 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. 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.}
On 7/9/2019 11:16 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:51 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
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.
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.
In general, I go by this formula:
<time elements> <adverbials and syntactic noun phrases> <objects> <verb> <subjects>
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.
What do you mean by "syntactic noun phrases"? Things with Type 5 noun suffixes?
Yes, or those nouns that are inherently locative. Type 5 suffixes are "syntactic markers."
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:
<question words> <type-5 noun phrases> <time elements> <adverbials> <object> <verb> <subject>
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. Let's see... *DaHjaj SuvwI''e' jIH*/Today I am a warrior. /(TKW, KGT) This one has a type 5'd noun after a time element. One could conceivably argue that *DaHjaj SuvwI''e'* is meant to be a noun-noun construction, /today's warrior,/ but I doubt this. Of course, there's no OVS in this sentence. *reH HIvje'lIjDaq 'Iwghargh Datu'jaj*/May you always find a bloodworm in your glass./ (PK) // 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. *reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS*/The fire is always hotter on someone else's face./ (PK) Also unambiguous and not a toast, and we haven't heard anything about special grammar for replacement proverbs. *vaj loghDaq lenglaHtaH Humanpu'*/[Therefore humans continue to be able to travel in space.]/ (Skybox 99) No appeal to special grammar at all. The adverbial clearly precedes the locative. 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.
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.
The question really is, can an *-'e'* 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 *-'e'* gets interpreted strictly within the relative clause. But I have no proof of that.
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.}
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. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:58 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Let's see...
*DaHjaj SuvwI''e' jIH** Today I am a warrior. *(TKW, KGT)
This one has a type 5'd noun after a time element. One could conceivably argue that *DaHjaj SuvwI''e'* is meant to be a noun-noun construction, *today's warrior,* but I doubt this. Of course, there's no OVS in this sentence.
*-'e'* is sort of an unusual type 5 prefix, since not all words with it necessarily go before the OVS part. It can be applied to subjects and objects which would have their usual place in the sentence. In this case, I think *SuvwI''e'* is more like an object than a distinct syntactic phrase. (I know, *jIH* isn't really a verb so *SuvwI''e'* isn't really an object, but in terms of where the nouns go, the pronoun-as-copula arrangement is very similar to a standard OVS arrangement.) So this would be more of a "time stamps precede the object" arrangement, which we already knew. The other examples you found are convincing, though.
On 7/9/2019 1:31 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:58 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
Let's see...
*DaHjaj SuvwI''e' jIH*/Today I am a warrior. /(TKW, KGT)
This one has a type 5'd noun after a time element. One could conceivably argue that *DaHjaj SuvwI''e'* is meant to be a noun-noun construction, /today's warrior,/ but I doubt this. Of course, there's no OVS in this sentence.
*-'e'* is sort of an unusual type 5 prefix, since not all words with it necessarily go before the OVS part. It can be applied to subjects and objects which would have their usual place in the sentence. In this case, I think *SuvwI''e'* is more like an object than a distinct syntactic phrase. (I know, *jIH* isn't really a verb so *SuvwI''e'* isn't really an object, but in terms of where the nouns go, the pronoun-as-copula arrangement is very similar to a standard OVS arrangement.) So this would be more of a "time stamps precede the object" arrangement, which we already knew.
Agreed. This sentence was just the first one I found on my first search, which was for the word *DaHjaj.* It's not a strong piece of evidence. The sentence itself is notable for other reasons. It's got *-'e'* on a noun /before/ the pronoun. I think the purpose of the suffix is emphasis: /Today I am a WARRIOR (as opposed to whatever I was before)./ I think this is the only time a pronoun-as-to-be sentence has an *-'e'* suffix on the noun before the pronoun. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Good discussion. I’ll just add my agreement that time stamps have a high priority of providing context to what follows, so they are best placed first. They even reach beyond the scope of the sentence containing them, for anything that follows until some new time stamp establishes a new time context. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’
On Jul 9, 2019, at 1:38 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/9/2019 1:31 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:58 AM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: Let's see...
DaHjaj SuvwI''e' jIH Today I am a warrior. (TKW, KGT)
This one has a type 5'd noun after a time element. One could conceivably argue that DaHjaj SuvwI''e' is meant to be a noun-noun construction, today's warrior, but I doubt this. Of course, there's no OVS in this sentence.
-'e' is sort of an unusual type 5 prefix, since not all words with it necessarily go before the OVS part. It can be applied to subjects and objects which would have their usual place in the sentence. In this case, I think SuvwI''e' is more like an object than a distinct syntactic phrase. (I know, jIH isn't really a verb so SuvwI''e' isn't really an object, but in terms of where the nouns go, the pronoun-as-copula arrangement is very similar to a standard OVS arrangement.) So this would be more of a "time stamps precede the object" arrangement, which we already knew. Agreed. This sentence was just the first one I found on my first search, which was for the word DaHjaj. It's not a strong piece of evidence.
The sentence itself is notable for other reasons. It's got -'e' on a noun before the pronoun. I think the purpose of the suffix is emphasis: Today I am a WARRIOR (as opposed to whatever I was before). I think this is the only time a pronoun-as-to-be sentence has an -'e' suffix on the noun before the pronoun.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (4)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin