tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 05 20:03:46 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Nick's comments on HolQeD
> ghItlh qoran:
> >Yes, it would be nice, wouldn't it? But can one say that? I know that
> >comparisons are a rule unto themselves and that they have absolutely
> >nothing behind them in the rest of the grammar, but this looks to me
> >suspiciously similar to SASs, wouldn't you say? You can't say directly
> >"It is preferable that I go." Not with what we know this moment. If I
> >got that right. (Wild guesses as {jIjaH. qaq 'e'} and other weird and
> >not-yet-and-who-knows-when-and-indeed-if-approved things excluded. {{:^))
>
> But you're dealing with a comparative construction, in all of which the
> stative verb (quality under comparison) comes *AFTER* the two nouns being
> compared. Recall the general formula:
>
> N1 Q law' N2 Q puS
>
> {'e'} is of course a noun. A stative verb following the pronoun would not
> only be acceptable, but doing it any other way would not be grammatical.
> Let's re-analyze charghwI''s sentence:
>
> {jIjaH 'e' qaq law' jIratlh 'e' qaq puS}
>
> The two things being compared are the pronouns {'e'} which in this case refer
> to two different things. So actually {jIjaH 'e'} and {jIratlh 'e'} are being
> compared. These fit into the N1 and N2 positions. {qaq} fits into the Q
> position, AFTER the N1 and N2. Then you have your comparative markers, {law'}
> and {puS}.
>
> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
Yeah... I see your point, and I see it as most convincing one.
I thought the verb (Q) to be adjectival. If you consider it a proper verb in
an unusual position, then I accept your argument fully.
Thank you for clarification. {{:^)
> ghItlh 'o': tIchmeH mu'vam'e' chaq lo'lu'
>
> yIH vISop 'e' Qob law' SoH qaSuv 'e' Qob puS
tIchmeH mu'tlheghvam QaQqu' 'ej tera'nganvaD tlhaQ jay' 'e' vIQub.
yItIchtaH yIruch! {{:^)
qoran