[Tlhingan-hol] Canon surrounding order of pre-OVS elements

[Robyn Stewart]

This discussion question concerns the relative order of items that precede
the OVS structure of a phrase: timestamps, adverbs, and nouns bearing type-5
suffixes.

TKD 6.1 tells us that the nouns that are neither O nor S precede the OVS.
TKD 6.7 tells us that the usual order is timestamp then adverb, but suggests
elements other than timestamps might precede the adverb.

reH HIvje'lIjDaq 'Iwghargh Datu'jaj. shows us that an adverb can precede a
noun with a type-5
tlhIngan Dujmey law'qu' SommeyDaq batlh cha'lu'. shows that the adverb can
follow it.
HaqwI''e' DaH yISam shows that it can follow it, but is rather a special
case.

Do we have any canon showing a noun with a type-5 suffix and a timestamp in
the same sentence? Are there any other examples with a type-5 noun suffix
and an adverb in the same sentence? (Disregarding neH and jay'). I'm pretty
sure we're not so fortunate as to have an example with all three.

(If someone whose brain is not wired for memorizing or composing wants to
make a lasting contribution to the language, a concordance that made the
paq'batlh searchable on such criteria would be worth its weight in gold
pressed latinum.)

Would anyone be uncomfortable with me telling beginners that the information
we have suggests that the timestamp should precede the noun with the type 5,
but that when it improves clarity, the timestamp might follow, as the adverb
does in the complex phrase above about the emblem being emblazoned on hulls?

My examples - anyone take issue?

DaHjaj 'etlhlIjmo' maQap.
wanI'vammo' DaHjaj bInoy.

- Qov



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140613/ecdf2c8f/attachment.html>