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. 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. 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. The few canon examples we have fit this model. There is no canon example that breaks it. I’m just sayin’... charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Sep 17, 2019, at 6:26 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:28, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>> wrote: 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.

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.

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}.

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.

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.

{chaq tugh nuHIv} (I don't know when the enemy will attack us; perhaps it is soon) {tugh chaq nuHIv} (I know the enemy will act soon; perhaps they will attack us)

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").

-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

To be honest, I completely agree. The only reason I even brought up the idea of adverbial types was that if someone wants to start making up grammatical rules about how Klingon handles multiple adverbials (and no one should, but this discussion was leading in that direction), then we should probably start out by looking for patterns that already exist in other areas of Klingon grammar. Looking at the actual examples, certain adverbials appear to consistently precede other particular adverbials. That looks a lot like the behavior of verb suffixes. There is no evidence that the order of adverbials depends upon their relative “importance”. We don’t even know how a Klingon would rate the relative importance of adverbials. There is limited evidence that there is a kind of nesting such that each adverbial applies to all that follows it, though it could well be that the sequence is arbitrary. Meanwhile, he could have shown us that it is arbitrary by varying which adverbial comes first, but he didn’t, so it seems less likely that it is arbitrary. It would be interesting if someone were to bring up the idea of adverbial types to Okrand. I suspect he’d smile at the idea. He might go with it, though I doubt it. If he did, he’d probably go back and study the patterns he’s already followed, then expand on those patterns with ideas of his own and we’d have another little interesting tweak to the grammar of the language. But, as I said, he probably would just smile and not offer us any further insight. Any opinion the rest of us might form can color our individual approach to the language, but will not become commonly accepted practice by the body of speakers. It’s our language to use. It’s not our language to change. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Sep 17, 2019, at 9:17 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 9/17/2019 8:48 AM, Will Martin wrote:

...

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.

We don't have enough evidence to prove it one way or the other. I don't think anyone here has declared that they've found the correct rule.

I would warn not to go by how things "feel." English has its own not-completely-understood scoping and ordering rules that may bias us toward one interpretation over the other. I imagine Greek does too. As none of us is a native Klingon speaker who grew up among native Klingon speakers, we can never be sure we have that innate sense of the rules.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

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

charghwI':

It’s our language to use. It’s not our language to change.

This is so beautiful ! ~ mayqel qunen'oS

Ca'Non master:

how can you tell which adverbial is "the most important one" for Okrand?

You're right, I can't. As americans say, "it's just a gut feeling I have". Let me explain..

chaq batlh bIvangqa'laH

In this sentence, I "feel" that while someone's acting, it's of more importance the whether he acts honorably or not, than the "perhaps" he acts

chaq tugh batlh Heghmo'

Same here; the "honorable"/"unhonorable" death is more important than the "when" ({tugh}), and the "when" more important than the "perhaps".

chaq tugh charghmo'

The "when" "feels" more important than the "perhaps".

reH batlh SuvtaHjaj chaH

The honorable"/"unhonorable" way of fighting, is more important than the "always".

vaj pe'vIl joqqu'

The "forcefully" "feels" more important than the "so/then/thus/in that case". Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm *not* saying that I'm right, and I'm certainly *not* suggesting that there is here some hidden rule in the ordering of adverbials, we need to acknowledge. I'm just sharing, an impression I have, that the adverbials which are more important as far as the meaning of the verb is concerned, tend to be placed closer to it. - bara'qa'