tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 02 08:37:19 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Questions in tlhIngan syntax (II) Double superlatives???

Steven Boozer ([email protected])



Jesse Morales wrote:
>At section 6.6 in the Klingon Dictionary, Comparatives and superlatives,
>there is the example...
>
>   la' jaq law' Hoch jaq puS
>   The commander is boldest of all
>
>My idea was to add the suffix -qu' to the first instance of the verb "jaq"
>for the expression of...
>
>   The commander is the 'most' boldest of all.
>   la' jaqqu' law' Hoch jaq puS
>
>First, would the constraints concerning comparatives and superlatives in the
>language allow for the adding of the emphasizing suffix to the condition
>verb in the formula? Is such a thing grammatical?

We don't know, but I suspect not.  Okrand on using idioms:

   These expressions that cannot be interpreted properly from the
   individual meanings of their components are idioms To understand
   an idiom, one must learn the phrase as a whole. <...> In using an
   idiom, one must repeat it exactly; paraphrases will be interpreted
   literally, not in the idiomatic sense.  (KGT 106)

If a Klingon would say this at all, it would probably be understood as an 
example of {mu'mey ru'} "temporary words", i.e. one-time ungrammatical 
phrases uttered for rhetorical effect.  Read the section on "Intentional 
Ungrammaticality" in KGT (pp. 176-181), especially the part on variations 
of the {law'/puS} formula (pp. 178-180).  If you don't have KGT, here's an 
extract:

   Another kind of bending of the grammar involves the comparative
   construction <...> As a form of word play, antonyms (that is, words
   with opposite meanings) other than {law'} and {puS} are sometimes
   plugged into the formula. The resulting phrases literally make no
   sense at all, but because of the uniqueness of the {law'/puS} phrases
   within Klingon grammar, they are always understood. Constructions
   such as the following might be heard, all meaning, thought not
   literally, "The Klingon is braver than the Ferengi":

      tlhIngan yoH HoS verengan yoH puj.
      tlhIngan yoH pIv verengan yoH rop.
      tlhIngan yoH Daj verengan yoH qetlh.

   Such fanciful use of words is found with the superlative construction
   (something is the most or the best) as well. <...> It is possible,
   however, for rhetorical effect, to say such things as {tlhIngan yoH
   HoS Hoch yoH puj} <...> If one state of affairs is not inherently
   better or worse than its opposite, the terms may occur in either order.
   Once again comparing the brave Klingon and the not-so-brave Ferengi:

      tlhIngan yoH jen verengan yoH 'eS
      tlhIngan yoH 'eS verengan yoH jen.

      tlhIngan yoH ghegh verengan yoH Hab
      tlhIngan yoH Hab verengan yoH ghegh.

   Some conditions, on the other hand, are more highly regarded than
   others. In those instances, it is essential to get the terms in the
   correct order. For example, among Klingons, a task that is difficult
   ({Qatlh}) is more highly valued than one that is easy ({ngeD}).
   Accordingly, in these creative comparative and superlative construc-
   tions, {Qatlh} is associated with the quality that is "many" and
   {ngeD} with the quality that is "few". To say "The Klingon is braver
   than the Ferengi," one would have to say {tlhIngan yoH Qatlh verengan
   yoH ngeD}. Reversing the order of {Qatlh} and {ngeD} would produce
   the phrase {tlhIngan yoH ngeD verengan yoH Qatlh}, which, if inter-
   pretable at all, would mean "The Klingon is less brave than the
   Ferengi." Even if one really meant it, uttering such a phrase could
   lead to unfortunate consequences.

>Would mine, exampled above, be correct?
>Could this possibly be an example of a tlhIngan "double superlative?"

I've never heard of double superlatives.  What is the difference between 
"boldest of all" and "most boldest of all"?  To me both the English and 
Klingon sound ungrammatical or - for the descriptive linguists - uneducated.

>Second, if this is grammatically correct, what is the semantic meaning of
>it?

AFAIK our only example of a suffix placed on {law'} in the comparative 
formula is:

   QuchlIj vIl law'be' QuchwIj vIl puSbe'
   your forehead isn't ridgier than my forehead (HQ 13.1:10)

Note that {-be'} appears on *both* {law'} and {puS}.  I imagine you would 
do the same with {-qu'}.

The usual way to refine {law'/puS} comparisons is not to add suffixes but, 
as we've seen, to substitute different qualities for one or both 
terms.  Some more examples:

   ro'qegh'Iwchab 'ey law' qagh 'ey law'
   the rokeg blood pie is as delicious as the gagh. (HQ 13.1:10)

   tlhIngan woch law' tera'ngan woch nIb
   the Klingon is as tall as the Terran (HQ 13.1:9)

   tlhIngan woch law' tera'ngan woch rap
   the Klingon is as tall as the Terran. (HQ 13.1:9)

   QuchlIj vIl law' QuchwIj vIl pIm
   your forehead is not as ridgy as my forehead (HQ 13.1:10)



--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons






Back to archive top level