tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 27 15:51:54 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Fun with law'/puS constructions
JIQEL wrote:
>Can you put suffixes on verbs in a law'/puS construction? (I seem to
>remember having done this, but thinking it out at the moment I think it
>seems really weird to do this.)
>
> jIH HoS law' SoH HoS puS I am stronger than you.
>
> ?jIH HoS law'chugh SoH HoS puS ?If I am stronger than you...
This is a very good question which should generate a lot of
discussion! Here's my take...
As far as we know, the {A Q law' B Q puS} "A is Q-er than B" formula is
absolutely fixed -- although Okrand explains in KGT [pp. 178ff.] that one
can, occasionally, substitute other pairs of antonyms for {law'} and {puS}
as a form of clever word-play.
We've seen that the A and B elements - the two things being compared - can
be complicated. In these examples I've marked them with angle brackets:
<QamvIS Hegh> qaq law' <torvIS yIn> qaq puS
Better to die on our feet than live on our knees. ST6
<targhlIj yab tIn> law' <no'lI' Hoch yabDu'> tIn puS
Your targ has a bigger brain than all your ancestors put together! PK
or *very* complicated, even using two comparisons together:
<DujvamDaq tlhIngan nuH tu'lu'bogh pov> law' <Hoch> pov puS 'ej <DujvamDaq
'op SuvwI' tu'lu'bogh po'> law' <tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law'> po' puS
It [IKV Pagh] has the best weapons and some of the finest warriors in
the Klingon fleet. S7
We've never seen, however, any suffix whatsoever used on the {law'/puS}
elements themselves. Thus we don't know how to say - or even *if* we can
say - "A is not Q-er than B", "Is A Q-er than B?", "If A is Q-er than B",
etc. If these variations are permitted, do you put the suffix on both
{law'} and {puS}, or only on one of the elements; and if the latter, which
one? In other words, what is the right way to say "A is not Q-er than B":
?A Q law'be' B Q puS
?A Q law' B Q puSbe'
?A Q law'be' B Q puSbe'
or "Is A Q-er than B?":
?A Q law''a' B Q puS
?A Q law' B Q puS'a'
?A Q law''a' B Q puS'a'
For all we know, completely different formulas are used to render these
ideas, or you may have to add a second clause: e.g. "A is Q-er than B; is
that correct?" or "It is not true that A is Q-er than B".
As for using {-chugh} "if", the only example of this with a law'/puS
formula is:
tlhIngan wo' yuQmey chovlu'chugh Qo'noS potlh law' Hoch potlh puS
The principal planet of the Klingon Empire, Qo'noS... S27
("If planets of the Klingon Empire are assessed/evaluated, Qo'noS
is the most important.")
which isn't very helpful.
>This problem came about as I was trying to describe a walking
>program/contest I've just enrolled in. I was trying to explain that if
>I increase my steps (chuq yIt-walking distance) every day, then I may
{yIt} "walk" is a verb and can't form noun phrases like this. You can use
{yItmeH chuq} "distance for walking" instead.
>win a prize. Thus I wanted to put a -chugh on the law' in the law'/puS.
>
> A Q law' B Q puS
>
>The distance today is being compared to the distance yesterday.
>
> DaHjaj chuq yIt Q law' wa'Hu' chuq yIt Q puS
Or:
DaHjaj yItmeH chuq Q law' wa'Hu' yItmeH chuq Q puS
Today's walking distance is Q-er than yesterday's [walking distance].
Even better style is to preface the comparison with a purpose clause:
yItmeH DaHjaj chuq Q law' wa'Hu' chuq Q puS
Today's distance is Q-er than yesterday's for walking.
For walking, today's distance is Q-er than yesterday's.
We have two examples of this in canon (I've bracketed the comparisons to
make them easier to see):
jonlu'meH <wo'maj pop tIn law' Hoch tIn puS>
Our Empire's highest bounty has been placed on his head. (ST5 notes)
tlhutlhmeH <HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS>
Drinking fake ale is better than drinking water. TKW
>The length is the quality.
>
> wa'Hu' chuq yIt tIq law' DaHjaj chuq yIt tIq puS
Assuming that {tIq} "be long, be lengthy, be extended (of an object)" is
the right quality to measure distance - it may be {nI} "be long, be lengthy
(duration)" referring to the time needed to walk the distance - - then we have:
yItmeH <DaHjaj chuq tIq law' wa'Hu' chuq tIq puS>
Today's distance is longer than yesterday's for walking.
For walking, today's distance is longer than yesterday's.
>Assuming the above is permissible, of which I am entirely unsure, then I
>would do the further unsure thing of placing a -chugh on the law' to get
>something which, in my twisted brain, reads: "If yesterday's walking
>distance is longer than today's walking distance..."
>
> ?wa'Hu' chuq yIt tIq law'chugh DaHjaj chuq yIt tIq puS...
Which brings us back to your original question, and I'm not sure how to
translate this. The simplest method is to add {-chugh} just as you have
done and certainly everyone on this list will understand
you. Unfortunately, that may not turn out to be grammatical.
My gut feeling is that you will have to use some sort of dependent clause
to explain why you are making the comparison in the first place. Here are
some examples:
noH ghoblu'DI' <yay quv law' Hoch quv puS>
In war there is nothing more honorable than victory. TKW
reH latlh qabDaq <qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS>
The fire is always hotter on someone else's face. PK
qIbDaq SuvwI''e' <SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS>
You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy. ST5
What's the rest of this sentence: "If yesterday's walking distance is
longer than today's ..."? What happens if the distance is longer? You
will probably have to re-phrase the entire thought. E.g.
Hoch jaj yItmeH chuqwIj vIghurchugh ...
If I increase my walking distance every day ...
All of which goes to show that there are no simple questions when it comes
to Klingon grammar!
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons