Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Adverbs with {-qu'}
A slighty off-topic question, but it's something I've considered recently and it fits in here: We have been told (in TKD, I think? Was it reinforced later, or taken away?) that klingons only use three classes of words: *) nouns *) verbs *) everything else (the "leftovers") Is this still correct? I'm asking because an "adverb" is something I'd like to put in with "verbs", but that is because of the name. Would klingons see an adverb as a form of verb, or as <<chuvmey>> that simply "looks and acts" as a verb, but doesn't follow all the rules. Because if an adverb is considered a verb, shouldn't all verb-affixes be allowed? But if it's a <<chuvmey>>, then it would make more sense to say that as a rule they don't have any affixes, but for this or that word it is known that it may take this or that suffix. They'd simply be special cases, as any language has. (Also, it would keep things simple, IMO.) Unfortunately, both Klingonska and <<boQwI'>> only say "adverb" :-( Christoph
Message: 24 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:08:19 -0500 From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Adverbs with {-qu'} Message-ID: <f6e12bb6-54c0-86de-5172-97fde21f3215@trimboli.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
On 11/30/2016 12:28 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
Okrand had recently added *-Ha'* to an adverbial for the first time
So, do we consider this to be for us a license to place {-Ha'}, to whichever adverbs we wish ?
His general message has been, yes, adverbials can generally use *-Ha',* but there's no absolute guarantee that all of them can do it.
And where do we draw the line ? Why stop at the {-Ha'}, and not continue to other rovers as well ?
Because Okrand has specifically about and used only *-Ha'.* No other suffix has been used or even hinted at.
If someone writes something which 'oqranD never wrote, we say "don't do it, it has no precedent". but if there is a precedent, why not act upon it ?
Precedent and suggestion exists for *-Ha';* it does not exist for any other suffix.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 02.12.2016 um 08:14 schrieb PICHLMANN Christoph:
A slighty off-topic question,
AS long as it's about Klingon, it's not off-topic :-)
We have been told (in TKD, I think? Was it reinforced later, or taken away?) that klingons only use three classes of words:
Well, actually, Okrand has indeed "reinforced" this just one week ago at the Starbas Indy, where ha gave a lesson about Klingon: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarbaseIndy
*) nouns *) verbs *) everything else (the "leftovers")
Is this still correct?
Yes, but you should not think too much about that. It may be true that Klingons treat them as "anything else" or "leftovers", but that does not stop us from naming them what they really are, e.g. "adverbials" etc.
I'm asking because an "adverb" is something I'd like to put in with "verbs", but that is because of the name.
I am not alinguist, but a verb describes an action (even sometimes adjectivally) and the adverb describes how the action is done. The adverb cannot stand on itself, think of the meaning aof ad-verb: it stands "ad" the "verb".
Because if an adverb is considered a verb, shouldn't all verb-affixes be allowed?
No, this is a clear situation; an adverb is not a verb, so it cannot take verb affixes - as far as I comprehend the situation. someone elso wrote:
And where do we draw the line ? Why stop at the {-Ha'}, and not continue to other rovers as well ?
SuStel said:
Because Okrand has specifically about and used only *-Ha'.* No other suffix has been used or even hinted at.
Note in this case the examples we have for "very fast" or other intensified adverbials, where we would add {-qu'} like *nomqu'. http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ComparingAdverbs -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
On 12/2/2016 2:14 AM, PICHLMANN Christoph wrote:
We have been told (in TKD, I think? Was it reinforced later, or taken away?) that klingons only use three classes of words:
*) nouns *) verbs *) everything else (the "leftovers")
Is this still correct?
Klingon grammarians classify Klingon words into only those three categories, yes. Federation grammarians divide the *chuvmey* up into subcategories to assist understanding. Both ways are just systems of organizing our understanding of the language and are not prescriptive.
I'm asking because an "adverb" is something I'd like to put in with "verbs", but that is because of the name. Would klingons see an adverb as a form of verb, or as <<chuvmey>> that simply "looks and acts" as a verb, but doesn't follow all the rules.
Because if an adverb is considered a verb, shouldn't all verb-affixes be allowed? But if it's a <<chuvmey>>, then it would make more sense to say that as a rule they don't have any affixes, but for this or that word it is known that it may take this or that suffix. They'd simply be special cases, as any language has. (Also, it would keep things simple, IMO.)
An adverb is not a verb; it is a leftover. Wikipedia defines an adverb <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverb> as "a word that modifies a verb, adjective, another adverb, determiner, noun phrase, clause, or sentence." It defines an adverbial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverbial> as "a word (an adverb) or a group of words (an adverbial phrase or an adverbial clause) that modifies or tells us something about the sentence or the verb." Adverbs are a subset of adverbials; the latter has a broader meaning. /The Klingon Dictionary/ uses the word /adverbial/ throughout, not /adverb, /with two exceptions: *naDev, pa',* and *Dat* are nouns in Klingon but adverbs in English; and Klingon adverbials are called adverbs in section 6.7 of the Addendum. When Federation grammarians group some of the *chuvmey* into adverbials, they're saying that these are the words that modify the meaning of the verb or sentence, or can sometimes be used as standalone exclamations. There is an exceptional adverbial, *neH* /merely, only/ that modifies both verbs and nouns, and does so in a unique position (after); /TKD/ admits calling it an adverbial is awkward. The rest of the adverbials modify the sentence by going before the object-verb-subject or *law'/puS *structure. Klingon grammarians obviously recognize the adverbial function; they simply don't give it a name. Some of the *chuvmey,* they say, act this way. /TKD/ speculates that Klingon grammarians lump all the *chuvmey* together for expediency.
Unfortunately, both Klingonska and <<boQwI'>> only say "adverb":-(
Labeling them as adverbials would have been better. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
The rest of the adverbials modify the sentence by going before the object-verb-subject or law'/puS structure.
and if you had an adverbial and a noun with a type-5 suffix, which would you place first ? I remember discussing this some time ago, and no definite consensus existing on the matter. qunnoH jan puqloD On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 4:29 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/2/2016 2:14 AM, PICHLMANN Christoph wrote:
We have been told (in TKD, I think? Was it reinforced later, or taken away?) that klingons only use three classes of words:
*) nouns *) verbs *) everything else (the "leftovers")
Is this still correct?
Klingon grammarians classify Klingon words into only those three categories, yes. Federation grammarians divide the chuvmey up into subcategories to assist understanding. Both ways are just systems of organizing our understanding of the language and are not prescriptive.
I'm asking because an "adverb" is something I'd like to put in with "verbs", but that is because of the name. Would klingons see an adverb as a form of verb, or as <<chuvmey>> that simply "looks and acts" as a verb, but doesn't follow all the rules.
Because if an adverb is considered a verb, shouldn't all verb-affixes be allowed? But if it's a <<chuvmey>>, then it would make more sense to say that as a rule they don't have any affixes, but for this or that word it is known that it may take this or that suffix. They'd simply be special cases, as any language has. (Also, it would keep things simple, IMO.)
An adverb is not a verb; it is a leftover.
Wikipedia defines an adverb as "a word that modifies a verb, adjective, another adverb, determiner, noun phrase, clause, or sentence." It defines an adverbial as "a word (an adverb) or a group of words (an adverbial phrase or an adverbial clause) that modifies or tells us something about the sentence or the verb." Adverbs are a subset of adverbials; the latter has a broader meaning. The Klingon Dictionary uses the word adverbial throughout, not adverb, with two exceptions: naDev, pa', and Dat are nouns in Klingon but adverbs in English; and Klingon adverbials are called adverbs in section 6.7 of the Addendum.
When Federation grammarians group some of the chuvmey into adverbials, they're saying that these are the words that modify the meaning of the verb or sentence, or can sometimes be used as standalone exclamations. There is an exceptional adverbial, neH merely, only that modifies both verbs and nouns, and does so in a unique position (after); TKD admits calling it an adverbial is awkward. The rest of the adverbials modify the sentence by going before the object-verb-subject or law'/puS structure.
Klingon grammarians obviously recognize the adverbial function; they simply don't give it a name. Some of the chuvmey, they say, act this way. TKD speculates that Klingon grammarians lump all the chuvmey together for expediency.
Unfortunately, both Klingonska and <<boQwI'>> only say "adverb" :-(
Labeling them as adverbials would have been better.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/2/2016 10:22 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
The rest of the adverbials modify the sentence by going before the object-verb-subject or law'/puS structure. and if you had an adverbial and a noun with a type-5 suffix, which would you place first ? I remember discussing this some time ago, and no definite consensus existing on the matter.
I would put the adverbial before the syntactic noun, though there's no absolute rule about it. Okrand has mostly done it this way: *qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS */You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy./ (ST5) *batlh naDev SuDab */Welcome to this place (you inhabit here honorably)/ (PB) *QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH 'ej 'oy' SIQ ghaH */And teach him life and death, the slow and painful way!/ (PB) *vaj loghDaq lenglaHtaH Humanpu' */(thus humans can continue traveling in space)/ (SkyBox 99) But he's also done it the other way: *tlhIngan Dujmey law'qu' SommeyDaq batlh cha'lu' */emblazoned upon the hulls of countless Klingon Starships (it has been displayed honorably on very many Klingon ships' hulls)/ (SkyBox SP1) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj. and if you had an adverbial, a noun with a type-5 suffix, AND a time stamp ? where would you place the time stamp ? qunnoH jan puqloD On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:48 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/2/2016 10:22 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
The rest of the adverbials modify the sentence by going before the object-verb-subject or law'/puS structure.
and if you had an adverbial and a noun with a type-5 suffix, which would you place first ? I remember discussing this some time ago, and no definite consensus existing on the matter.
I would put the adverbial before the syntactic noun, though there's no absolute rule about it. Okrand has mostly done it this way:
qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy. (ST5)
batlh naDev SuDab Welcome to this place (you inhabit here honorably) (PB)
QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH 'ej 'oy' SIQ ghaH And teach him life and death, the slow and painful way! (PB)
vaj loghDaq lenglaHtaH Humanpu' (thus humans can continue traveling in space) (SkyBox 99)
But he's also done it the other way:
tlhIngan Dujmey law'qu' SommeyDaq batlh cha'lu' emblazoned upon the hulls of countless Klingon Starships (it has been displayed honorably on very many Klingon ships' hulls) (SkyBox SP1)
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:00 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
maj. and if you had an adverbial, a noun with a type-5 suffix, AND a time stamp ? where would you place the time stamp ?
I'd just put it somewhere at the start. I believe there is no specific order to these things, it's all just about getting the information across: wa'Hu' Qo'noSDaq nom jISop - Yesterday, on Kronos, I ate quickly Qo'noSDaq cha'leS loQ jIyIt - On Kronos, the day after tomorrow, I will walk a little bit QIt DaHjaj Qo'noSDaq paq vIlaD - Slowly, today on Kronos, I read the book qurgh
On 12/2/2016 1:00 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
maj. and if you had an adverbial, a noun with a type-5 suffix, AND a time stamp ? where would you place the time stamp ?
"It is possible for an element of another type to precede the adverb. Most commonly, this is a time element (a noun or phrase meaning today, at six o’clock, etc.)." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (5)
-
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
PICHLMANN Christoph -
qurgh lungqIj -
SuStel