tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 17 15:11:52 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} A Q law' B Q puS
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} A Q law' B Q puS
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 15:11:52 -0400
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 12:04:00 -0400 (EDT)
>According to Riku Anttila:
>>
>> In TKD 6.6. it says that "A and B are the two things being compared".
>> What exactly qualifies as a "thing"?
>>
>> Until I saw ST6, I was under the impression that only nouns (or pronouns)
>> could be compared, but I'm quite positive that in the scene where Azetbur's
>> generals are trying to convince her that it would be better to start a war,
>> brigadier Kerla, his lines being "Better to die on our feet, than living on
>> our knees...!", says, although badly pronouncing, {QamvIS Hegh QaQ law'
>> torvIS yIn QaQ puS}.
>>
>> How am I to interpret this? Is a clause allowed inside the construction
>> or does -vIS without -taH work in the manner of -meH?
>Well, this is just another one of those little pieces of canon
>we hear, we wince and then we struggle to explain. First of
>all, using {-vIS} without {taH} is, so far as we've heard from
>Okrand, simply an error. He has made no pronouncements that it
>is okay to do this under any circumstances, unless, of course,
>you are in one of Paramount's movies or TV shows...
Definitely agree with you here. This sounds like one of those "instant
dialects" actors and script-editors and assorted circumstances tend to
invent.
>> (ie. {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} = A truce in order to confer =>
>> {QamvIS Hegh} = Death while standing?)
>Ummmm. I can see how you got the first example from TKD.
>Unfortunately, I really don't like Okrand's explanation of that
>particular point. Seeing the sentence as a whole in the
>example, I would not have associated {ja'chuqmeH} with the noun
>{rojHom} so much as with the verb {neH}.
I see where you're going with this, and I used to think the same. But I
don't now. In fact, I have occasionally made definite use of "-meH"
modifying a noun, based on this piece of canon. At first I took it the
same way you did, but I was talking about it with Krankor once, wondering
if it was legit, and he said "Of course it is!" Took a look in TKD, page
64, section 6.2.4:
"The purpose clause always precedes the -=>*NOUN*<=- or verb whose
purpose it is decribing." (slight emphasis added).
So it looks like Okrand intends to permit "-meH" to describe nouns.
>> I would assume that the -meH thing would fit fine inside law'/puS.
>It would, but for different reasons. Again, it relates to the
>verb, not the noun, in my opinion.
Yes... or it modifies nouns.
>> Summaring everything in a single sentence, is it legal to say
>>
>> {batlh Hegh QaQ law' QIt ramchoH QaQ puS} for
>> "It's better to die with honor than slowly become irrelevant"
>NO.
Right.
~mark