tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 02 15:22:39 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "too many"
According to [email protected]:
>
> On Mon, 1 May 1995 14:03:50 -0400, "William H. Martin" <[email protected]> said:
...
> > How about:
>
> > jabbI'IDmey yapqu' vIHev.
>
> It is not impossible to interpret this literally as `quite enough',
> `exactly the right amount', which is certainly fewer than `too many'.
I disagree. For these meanings, I would have used {yapbej}
"definitely enough" or {yapchu'} "perfectly enough". I think
{-qu'} definitely carries the sense of "lots", "very much" and
"too much".
> jabbI'ID(mey) law'qu' vIHev. (lit. `I received very many messages.')
Fine. Works for me.
> > Looking at a verb like {yap}, to make it "very"
> > is not very useful compared to making it "too".
>
> True, but making `very enough' mean `too much/many' is a hack.
I disagree. I reserve "hack" for constructions which fit far
worse than this.
> Many expressions are not useful at all as they stand, but that
> doesn't mean that they may be assigned meanings freely.
Do others really think this is overly free?
> I like the variant ghunchu'wI' proposed (`too many/much' is precisely
> `more than enough', after all), though the {law' law'} part does look
> awkward, even if it is formally correct. Yet it will be needed
> in other cases; how to say `There are more tribbles than targs'
> without {law' law'}?
By numbering them. "A Klingon may be inaccurate, but he is
never approximate." -- Still, I think {law' law'/ law' puS} is
valid.
> --'Iwvan
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |