tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 09 17:50:21 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

RE: jIH/SoH in comparatives

Heather Myers ([email protected])

• From: "Heather Myers" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: jIH/SoH in comparatives
• Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:50:21 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

jatlh lay'tel SIvten:
> 
> I have found two canon comparatives in which {jIH} or {SoH} fills the
'A'
> or 'B' position of the formula "A Q law' B Q puS".  And I realized
that A > and B are not subjects of Q at all, even though Q is a verb.
Just one    > more odd thing about law'/puS comparatives.
> Having said that, has anyone ever used something like {bItIn law'
jItIn
> puS} instead of {SoH tIn law' jIH tIn puS}?
> 
> Vixis:    qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS.
>              You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy.  [ST5,
HQ
> v8n4p12]
> 
> Maltz:  jIH Doy' law' SoH Doy' puS
>         I am more tired than you are.  [HQ v13n1p10]

The description of the law'/puS construction (TKD p.70) says that "A and
B are the two things being compared and Q is the quality which is being
measured."  For that reason, I believe that <SoH tIn law' jIH tIn puS>
is a legal sentence, while ?<bItIn law' jItIn puS> is not.  In the first
example, A and B exist (<SoH> and <jIH>).  In the second, there is no
thing being compared.  This construction is utilized by following the
formula. 

jI'qel ghojwI'
<batlh wo' yejHaD je vItoy'mo' jIHem>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 15-Jun-2004
 

• References:
  • jIH/SoH in comparatives
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: jIH/SoH in comparatives
• Next by Date: Re: Hol Sup 'oH tlhIngan Hol'e'
• Previous by thread: jIH/SoH in comparatives
• Next by thread: Re: jIH/SoH in comparatives
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level