tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 11 16:22:12 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Questions with law'/puS
- From: "qe'San \(Jon Brown\)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Questions with law'/puS
- Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:19:24 +0100
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=3torNM/ehHTSYn8hbSZmbmbtCWCw1BgoB7lFBJUtjWONj9oyemS5ep81DWoL2rIoqkOAVS1hJoLO4EtcsFeiY9ASVZ3175wCl/37uTPPKFn3WDuc6yKvh7uUp06sTpZC8U4UVLem8yQNTaG24znFm5qF7IHTAZ22GOaJonUViSk= ;
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: Questions with law'/puS
> ghunchu'wI' wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not saying you definitely can use {-'a'} on {law'/puS}, just
>>> that I see no fundamental objection to it.
>>
>> I see SuStel and Doq both objecting fundamentally to it. I share
>> their objection. In a comparative/superlative construction, {law'}
>> and {puS} don't act like verbs. I just don't see them working with
>> verb suffixes, especially type 9 ones.
>
> Let's say that it's not so much a fundamental objection as a gut
> feeling. The idea that you can't disprove it by pointing to a lack of
> evidence is valid, but by that logic you can also say that *{-cha} might
> be a perfectly valid suffix that means "spoken by a Northern Klingon."
> After all, we hear that suffix all the time on TV Star Trek. That one
> cannot disprove a negative is no reason to advocate the positive, even
> in an "I don't object to it" kind of way.
>
> My *hunch* is that, given the relatively large number of example
> law'/puS sentences that either follow the rules laid down in TKD, or are
> marked explicitly as exceptional and ungrammatical, one cannot add
> {-'a'} to {law'} and {puS} to make the sentence interrogative.
>
> It was said that there is a canonical example of a comparative sentence
> using {law'be'} and {puSbe'}. What is it, and where is it found?
>
> --
> SuStel
See Maltz's Reward Part IV HolQeD 13:1 pg 10:
QuchwIj vIl law' QuchlIj vIl puS
my forehead is reidgier than your forehead
To diagree with this notion, that is, to assert that your forehead is not
ridgier than mine (it may be the same), one would use the construction A Q
law'be' B Q puSbe' (A's Q is not many, B's Q is not few) (-be' not):
QuchlIj vIl law'be' QuchwIj vIl puSbe'
your forehead isn't ridgier than my forehead
qe'San
![[KLI Member]](../../../pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}