tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 26 07:15:03 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Comparatives (was KLBC)
According to R.B Franklin:
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Marc Ruehlaender wrote:
>
> > I am as big as you.
> > machHa'ghachlIj rap machHa'ghachwIj
> > My-un-small-ness equals your-un-small-ness.
>
> Although is it isn't very pretty, it is grammatically correct.
> Another way you could say it is: {bItIn 'ej jItIn je} or {bItIn 'ej jIrap}.
You were SOOOO close. I like the approach, but I think it would
be better as {bItIn 'ej marap.} Independently, asked about
this, I'd answer {wIjuvlu'chugh marap.} For me, it just tends
to nudge the equality of us towards being limited to size,
rather than fighting skill, for example. We also may not appear
much alike, but if you MEASURE us, we are the same. I could
also see {bItInmo' marap}, though for me, that feels a little
weaker.
> > You are not bigger than me.
> > SoH tIn law' jIH tIn puS 'e' temnISlu'
> > one-needs_to-deny
You never use {-'e'} and {-lu'} together like this. Instead,
this should be:
SoH tIn law' jIH tIn puS net temnIS.
I suspect that Okrand came up with {net} to avoid the
Sentence-As-Subject leanings of the {-'e'} and {-lu'}
combination, if interpreted as passive voice. You see, {net}
can only be interpreted as, "One must deny that you are bigger
than me," while {'e'}/{-lu'} could be translated as "It must be
denied that you are bigger than me." In that case, "it" is the
sentence; a reflection on the sentence referred to by {'e'},
and the "that" becomes a different kind of grammatical element.
Basically, it becomes very weird, so Okrand canned it and
replaced it with {net}.
...
> > I am two years older than you.
> > cha' DIS jIH qan law' SoH qan puS
> > ^^^^^^^^ is that sufficient?
>
> To me, simply saying {cha' DIS} doesn't seem quite enough. But off the
> top of my head, I simply can't figure out a perfect way to say this.
> Perhaps a slightly less ambiguous way to say it is:
> bIboghpa' qaStaHvIS cha' DIS jIbogh.
I really like this approach, though it sounds like you were in
the process of being born for two years. Your momma must have
had a rough go of it. I think adding {-pu'} to {jIbogh} would
make all the difference here.
Another approach would be {bIboghpa' cha' DIS vIyIn}. This may
be arguably idiomatic, however. I could understand if others
would object to this approach.
rapmeH yInmaj DISmey, yInlIjvaD cha' DIS chelnISlu'.
> > Two thoughts on the 'less X than'-discussion:
> >
> > You are less old than me.
> > QupHa'ghachlIj puS law' QupHa'ghachwIj puS puS
> > Your-un-young-ness is fewer than my-un-young-ness
>
> To me this doesn't perfectly solve the "less X than" question, I simply
> see this as "my oldness is more few than your oldness". (It doesn't
> sound very clear to me.)
I prefer yoDtargh's earlier suggestion:
jIH qan law' SoH'e' qan puS.
While it is not yet Okrand approved, it is far more elegant
than wrestling with {-ghach} and using {puS} within the
{law'/puS} construction.
> > >From the usual sentence structure Object precedes
> > Subject, wouldn't one infer that the original
> > meaning of A Q law' B Q puS IS indeed B is less
> > Q than A? That is you'd have to topicalize A to
> > emphasize A is more Q than B?
>
> I don't think one noun is the object of the other, it seems to be a
> compound sentence. But the word order deviates from the normal word order.
> This construction is simply idiomatic. You can't derive the meaning of
> the sentence by just looking at the plain meaning of the words. It's an
> exception to all the rules.
I completely agree. {law'/puS}, like the jokes and replacement
proverbs of Power Klingon, must be taken as delivered without
trying to determine the causes behind the effects. The
evolution is hidden from us, irrevocably. Deal with it. Trying
to spin off further effects from causes we can never confirm --
Not good.
> > Marc Doychlangan
>
> yoDtargh
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |