[101832] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Multiple Adverbials (was Re: Piraha)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Mon Nov 2 17:06:04 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:05:42 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org"
<tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
In-Reply-To: <5637C7B4.4070309@gmx.de>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============6628994928229649626==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7C1F9D98-AF67-46F4-A0E9-FCB9985E6C2D"
--Apple-Mail=_7C1F9D98-AF67-46F4-A0E9-FCB9985E6C2D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
On one hand, what you suggest makes sense, and anyone following the =
proposed grammatical rules will definitely be writing in clear, =
easy-to-understand Klingon.
On the other hand, I=E2=80=99m not sure that your theory is accurate, =
and think that maybe you are seeing a kind of order which would be =
really beautiful, were it real, but it might not be real.
I say this as a person who has, many times, thought that I recognized a =
nice, orderly way for things to work, only to discover that, no, people =
are not restricted to my idea of what a Klingon sentence should be like. =
It=E2=80=99s a messy language. It could have been messier, but it could =
have been more orderly as well.
I suspect that adverbials in Klingon are simply a pile of similarly =
functional grammatical tools. Maybe there is a consistent sequence to =
them, or maybe not. Someday, we may be told, but then again, maybe not.
I see {DaH tugh maSop} as being sensible, saying, =E2=80=9CNow, we will =
eat soon.=E2=80=9D Making a statement anchored in the =E2=80=9Cnow=E2=80=9D=
, we anticipate eating soon.
{wa'leS DaH maSop} suggests that tomorrow, we will now eat. Perhaps =
this time tomorrow, we will eat.
{DaH wa'leS maSop} similarly suggests that right now, we will eat =
tomorrow. Again, this time tomorrow, we will eat.
Can you think of a better way of saying, =E2=80=9CWe will eat this time =
tomorrow,=E2=80=9D? Especially if there=E2=80=99s context. We stand =
together and I point to my watch and say, {DaH wa'leS maSop.} They do =
have chronometers, after all...
I doubt that Klingon treats adverbials grammatically differently from =
one another if they answer different questions (why, how, when). A time =
stamp is a noun. {DaH} is not a noun. I know. That=E2=80=99s weird. But =
true.
{DaHjaj} is a noun. {DaH} is not. They both tell you the same thing =E2=80=
=94 when =E2=80=94 but DaHjaj is a time stamp, and {DaH} is an =
adverbial, which is not really a time stamp, even if it does exactly the =
same thing that a time stamp would do.
I think it goes back to deixis. {DaH} is a very specific deictic =
reference. {DaHjaj} is somewhat more vague, based on the day, rather =
than on immediacy.
Hmm. Then again, {naDev} is a very similar deictic reference=E2=80=A6 =
and it=E2=80=99s a noun. See? I thought I saw order, but I was wrong. =
It=E2=80=99s SOO tempting.
Like I said, Klingon is a messy language. Try to find TOO much order in =
it and that way goes madness. There be dragons=E2=80=A6
Turn back while there=E2=80=99s still time!
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
>=20
> Okay, I need to explain or clarify why I asked for "true adverbs", =
because I sometimes expect to understand people to know what I'm =
thinking.
>=20
> As far as I know, and you certainly agree, there are different kinds =
of adverbials: Some of them tell WHEN something happens, some tell HOW =
something happens.
>=20
> I believe that Okrand did not think of classifying them like that - to =
keep TKD short - so it's still possible that these must have some kind =
of order (this need to be verified and proven).
>=20
> My theory is that adverbs of the same type cannot occur on the same =
time:
> {DaH tugh maSop} makes no sense
> {DaH nom maSop} does make sense
>=20
> =46rom the "time-stamp" point of view, {DaH} and {tugh} seem to have =
the same function as {wa'leS} or {vagh rep ret}: They also cannot be =
used in the same time. It makes no sense to say {wa'leS DaH maSop} or =
{DaH wa'leS maSop}.
>=20
> What I mentioned as "true" adverbs (I know the term is wrong) were =
those adverbs which describe HOW something happens, in which matter.
>=20
> So, my question was: Do we have any examples of phrase with multiple =
adverbs which are NOT timestamps, and not adverbs which work like {vaj} =
referring to the previous phrase?
>=20
> ------
>=20
> When I compare Okrands examples and think about my theory, then the =
following phrase should be theoretically correct:
>=20
> {vaj DaH batlh maHegh}
>=20
> I need to think more about the other words to see how much it would =
make sense adding those.
>=20
> All of this is quite theoretical at this time and definitely an =
advanced speaker's discussion. I suggest beginners to learn how to say =
simple phraes before talking about such a subject.
>=20
> --=20
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka Quvar valer 'utlh
> Grammarian of the KLI
> http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
> http://www.klingonwiki.net
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail=_7C1F9D98-AF67-46F4-A0E9-FCB9985E6C2D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">On one hand, what you suggest makes sense, =
and anyone following the proposed grammatical rules will definitely be =
writing in clear, easy-to-understand Klingon.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">On the other hand, I=E2=80=99m not sure =
that your theory is accurate, and think that maybe you are seeing a kind =
of order which would be really beautiful, were it real, but it might not =
be real.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I say =
this as a person who has, many times, thought that I recognized a nice, =
orderly way for things to work, only to discover that, no, people are =
not restricted to my idea of what a Klingon sentence should be like. =
It=E2=80=99s a messy language. It could have been messier, but it could =
have been more orderly as well.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I suspect that adverbials in Klingon =
are simply a pile of similarly functional grammatical tools. Maybe there =
is a consistent sequence to them, or maybe not. Someday, we may be told, =
but then again, maybe not.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">I see {DaH tugh maSop} as being sensible, saying, =E2=80=9CNow,=
we will eat soon.=E2=80=9D Making a statement anchored in the =
=E2=80=9Cnow=E2=80=9D, we anticipate eating soon.</div><div class=3D""><br=
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{wa'leS DaH maSop} suggests that =
tomorrow, we will now eat. Perhaps this time tomorrow, we will =
eat.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{DaH =
wa'leS maSop} similarly suggests that right now, we will eat tomorrow. =
Again, this time tomorrow, we will eat.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Can you think of a better way of =
saying, =E2=80=9CWe will eat this time tomorrow,=E2=80=9D? Especially if =
there=E2=80=99s context. We stand together and I point to my watch and =
say, {DaH wa'leS maSop.} They do have chronometers, after =
all...</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I doubt =
that Klingon treats adverbials grammatically differently from one =
another if they answer different questions (why, how, when). A time =
stamp is a noun. {DaH} is not a noun. I know. That=E2=80=99s weird. But =
true.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">{DaHjaj} =
is a noun. {DaH} is not. They both tell you the same thing =E2=80=94 =
when =E2=80=94 but DaHjaj is a time stamp, and {DaH} is an adverbial, =
which is not really a time stamp, even if it does exactly the same thing =
that a time stamp would do.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div=
class=3D"">I think it goes back to deixis. {DaH} is a very specific =
deictic reference. {DaHjaj} is somewhat more vague, based on the day, =
rather than on immediacy.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Hmm. Then again, {naDev} is a very similar deictic =
reference=E2=80=A6 and it=E2=80=99s a noun. See? I thought I saw order, =
but I was wrong. It=E2=80=99s SOO tempting.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Like I said, Klingon is a messy =
language. Try to find TOO much order in it and that way goes madness. =
There be dragons=E2=80=A6</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Turn back while there=E2=80=99s still time!</div><br =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class=3D"">pItlh</div><div =
class=3D"">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></span><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Lieven <<a =
href=3D"mailto:levinius@gmx.de" class=3D"">levinius@gmx.de</a>> =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D"">Okay, =
I need to explain or clarify why I asked for "true adverbs", because I =
sometimes expect to understand people to know what I'm thinking.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">As far as I know, and you certainly agree, =
there are different kinds of adverbials: Some of them tell WHEN =
something happens, some tell HOW something happens.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">I believe that Okrand did not think of classifying them like =
that - to keep TKD short - so it's still possible that these must have =
some kind of order (this need to be verified and proven).<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">My theory is that adverbs of the same type =
cannot occur on the same time:<br class=3D"">{DaH tugh maSop} makes no =
sense<br class=3D"">{DaH nom maSop} does make sense<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">=46rom the "time-stamp" point of view, {DaH} and {tugh} seem =
to have the same function as {wa'leS} or {vagh rep ret}: They also =
cannot be used in the same time. It makes no sense to say {wa'leS DaH =
maSop} or {DaH wa'leS maSop}.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">What I =
mentioned as "true" adverbs (I know the term is wrong) were those =
adverbs which describe HOW something happens, in which matter.<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">So, my question was: Do we have any examples =
of phrase with multiple adverbs which are NOT timestamps, and not =
adverbs which work like {vaj} referring to the previous phrase?<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">------<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">When I =
compare Okrands examples and think about my theory, then the following =
phrase should be theoretically correct:<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">{vaj =
DaH batlh maHegh}<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">I need to think more =
about the other words to see how much it would make sense adding =
those.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">All of this is quite theoretical at =
this time and definitely an advanced speaker's discussion. I suggest =
beginners to learn how to say simple phraes before talking about such a =
subject.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">-- <br class=3D"">Lieven L. =
Litaer<br class=3D"">aka Quvar valer 'utlh<br class=3D"">Grammarian of =
the KLI<br class=3D""><a href=3D"http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher" =
class=3D"">http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher</a><br =
class=3D"">http://www.klingonwiki.net<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br =
class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org<br=
class=3D"">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol<br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_7C1F9D98-AF67-46F4-A0E9-FCB9985E6C2D--
--===============6628994928229649626==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============6628994928229649626==--
