tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 19 13:07:27 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: More on Greater Than/Less Than
On Oct 18, 11:47am, Paul J. Clegg wrote:
> Subject: More on Greater Than/Less Than
> Hmm... Ya know, I've been thinking about this little problem...
> Looking at the exact definition of law', law' means "to be many". It
> doesn't mean "to be greater", which it is used for in the TKD 6.6. In TKD
> 6.6, the example is:
> la' jaq law' yaS jaq puS The commander is bolder than the officer.
> How does this structure compare to the other structures presented in TKD?
> So, by this logic, could we also say:
This is where you went astray. This sort of Logical extrapolation is not
a valid way to extend the Klingon language. You have sought to figure out WHY
the comparitive structure exists as it does and then extend from that
explanation to say a lot of things Okrand never said in TKD. Unfortunately,
you have no license to do this. None of us do. Only Okrand could leap that
far to explain how this construction could do anything it doesn't do in TKD
> yaS jaq puS la' jaq law' The officer is less bold than the commander.
Note: It doesn't do THIS in TKD 6.6. This is not, so far as we can
currently tell, a valid Klingon sentence.
> Or maybe even:
> 'ejyo'waw' Qaw'ta' la' jaq law' The bolder commander destroyed the
> Basically, simplifying the greater/less structure into simply a statement
> of two quantities. "law'" and "puS" become adjectives of adjectives; they
> modify the state that an adjective employs, in a way similar to Hom and 'a'
> are as noun suffixes.
Sorry. You can't do that. Maybe if you want to make up verengan Hol, you
can do something like this, but Klingon exists already, it has one official
source, and it gives you no power to make such a conclusion.
> tuQoch'a'? tuQochbe''a'?
I don't just disagree. I'm right. You are wrong. Period.