tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 11 07:19:24 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Blood Wine
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Blood Wine
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:19:21 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from DarkViper on Wed, 9 Oct 1996 19:36:31 -0700)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 19:36:31 -0700
>From: Dark Viper <[email protected]>
><Huj> QaQ law' <jum> QaQ puS. <- ["Huj is gooder than jum; I know - but I
>can't find a word for better"]
Hee... You're feeling guilty for doing the *right* thing. "Better" is the
comparative form of "good." It's only due to English's own particular
weirdness that it's "better" and not "*gooder." Klingon doesn't compare
with comparatives in the same sense; it doesn't change the form of its
words with an "-er" suffix or whatever. But if it did, it might well treat
its verb for "good" completely regularly, and form "gooder" out of it. Not
every language has the same oddity about treating "good" different in
comparative (though to be sure a lot of them do). So far as we know, all
verbs form comparatives the same way in Klingon, so why try to apply
English's standards? QaQ law'/QaQ puS is just fine (though some people
like qaq law'/qaq puS or nIv law'/nIv puS.)
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMl5XYsppGeTJXWZ9AQFzRAL/cbtjAU5XfVze3zEucsjJ+Y3FqU0MRIS0
mPB9eBS2Bjf02BPQRlKVinUfSH0HL1dm57M/3y+d3Wtef3g7uJLcOlkym9JsbPaQ
95dbpALYTvQkC1pC2KeXO65rJ0szFrJN
=EQNR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----