tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 30 15:45:54 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: law'-puS in reverse?

yoDtargh wrote:
> The problem is not the implied difference between the two parties made by 
> the comparison, but which person is the subject of the sentence.

If that's the problem, then it's not a problem!  {A Q law' B Q puS} is
NOT a sentence, and has NO subject!  It's referred to by TKD simply as
a "construction".  The only time the word "sentence" is used in section
6.6 is in a parenthetical remark which refers to the English translation.

> The 
> party which is "more A" is always the subject.  In your example, TKD 
> indicates "your skill" is the subject of the sentence.

I disagree.  TKD TRANSLATES the construction into a sentence, placing
A as the subject and B as the direct object, and using "is more Q than"
as the verb.  But I really do not see any emphasis in the Klingon.  I'm
going to so far as to assert that there ISN'T any emphasis.

> But what if the 
> topic of the conversation is "my skill".  If "my skill" is the lesser 
> skill in the comparison, we don't have a way to specifically refer to it.

No, you don't -- at least not within the law'-puS construction.  However,
if you've been talking about it already, then you've already referred to
it and you can already have made it the topic of conversation.  If not, all
you need to do is use the "lesser" noun as the subject of a sentence.

> This came up when I was trying to figure out how to translate 
> "subgenius" for naQ'avwI'.  I simply wanted to say, "these people are 
> less intelligent than a genius".  The problem is that I don't want to 
> talk about geniuses, I want to refer to the people who are less 
> intelligent, i.e. the "subgeniuses".  The topic of my sentence is "these 
> people" and not "geniuses".

The topic of WHICH sentence?  Let me try to formulate an example:
"The children who are less smart than I am still need to learn."
Does this fit the kind of "problem" you're trying to solve?
{jIH val law' puqpu'vam val puS.  ghojnIStaH puqpu'vam.}  No problem.

I'm inclined to step out of character here and adopt a less-than-friendly
demeanor.  Pardon my brusqueness, but:
The law'-puS construction is not a sentence.  It has no subject.
Deal with it.

> (On the other hand, I am still rather fuzzy on the difference 
> between the linguistic concepts of "focus" and "topic".  Perhaps some 
> linguist would be kind enough to explain it to me in layman's terms.)

I think part of the problem with "focus" and "topic" is that a layman already
desribed it in linguist's terms. :-)  Sorry, I'm being unfair to Mr. Okrand.
I apologize.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level