[Tlhingan-hol] Multiple Adverbials (was Re: Piraha)

[De'vID]

On 2 November 2015 at 21:29, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> 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

At a particular kind of Klingon festival, the guests are always served
food soon after speeches. The last speech was just finished. One guest
says to another: {DaH tugh maSop}.

In the mess hall of a Bird of Prey, the weapons crew is enjoying a
leisurely meal. The captain announces a change of mission plans and a
yellow alert. They are proceeding to a new destination at warp 5.
There's still time to finish the meal, but only if they eat quickly.
The chief weapons officer announces to her crew: {DaH nom maSop}.

These are sentences that make perfect sense, in those contexts.

> From 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}.

Suppose that a festival was originally scheduled to be a few days from
now, depending on the weather. Participants hear rumours that it's two
days from now, three days from now, and so on. Somebody comes with the
latest news: {wa'leS malop}. Somebody else responds: {'ach wa'Hu'
jatlh ghawran, wejleS malop}. The messenger replies: {DaH wa'leS
malop}.

I certainly think that that sentence makes sense. Whether or not it's
grammatically allowed is another question, and the evidence seems to
suggest that it is.

(I think it would certainly be understood, even if it turns out to be
something an erudite or upper-class Klingon might try to avoid when
speaking properly, which I'm not convinced is the case.)

> What I mentioned as "true" adverbs (I know the term is wrong) were those
> adverbs which describe HOW something happens, in which matter.
>
> 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?

What is wrong with the aforementioned {chaq tugh batlh Hegh} example?
Even if you count {tugh} as a "timestamp", {chaq} and {batlh} are both
"true" adverbials, are they not? I can see how {chaq} and {ghaytan},
say, are arguably mutually exclusive, but that's due to their
incompatible meanings (in some context), not to their grammatical
role. The use of {chaq} and {batlh} (and {tugh}) seems to be pretty
good evidence that multiple adverbials can be stacked, when they make
sense together.

-- 
De'vID