tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 21 09:07:09 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} A Q law' B Q puS
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} A Q law' B Q puS
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 09:07:09 -0400 (EDT)
According to Riku Anttila:
>
> >> {QamvIS Hegh QaQ law' torvIS yIn QaQ puS}.
> > Well, this is just another one of those little pieces of canon
> > we hear, we wince and then we struggle to explain. First of
> > all, using {-vIS} without {taH} is, so far as we've heard from
> > Okrand, simply an error.
>
> So, it should be QamtaHvIS and tortaHvIS? "While death is standing is
> better than while life is kneeling"?
Not quite. You are forgetting about the special structure of
the law'/puS construction. The nouns {Hegh} and {yIn} are used
in that grammatical structure. They are not subjects of the
verbs {QamtaHvIS} or {tortaHvIS}.
Had I written this, it would have been {maQamtaHvIS Hegh QaQ
law' matortaHvIS yIn QaQ puS!} Okrand apparently considered it
okay to omit the prefix on the two dependent verbs. He'd
probably use the excuse that the speaker was passionate in his
speaking and fell back to clipping. The prefix is the most
commonly dropped thing when Klingon is clipped.
Perhaps he would also argue that clipping the {-taH} is
similarly okay. He has never explained this line to my
knowledge.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |