tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 12 00:31:54 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: law'/puS

charghwI' jabbI'IDvam vIHevpu':
> 
> In other words {loDpu' tIn law' be'pu' tIn puS} (whether
> or not you accept the generality) literally means, "Many big
> men, few big women." If that carries across the meaning of "Men
> are bigger than women," then it gives a lot more clarity to how
> far we can stretch this construction (which isn't very far).
> 
I'm aware that Klingon doesn't seem to have infinitives
(however, as Guido pointed out in an other post, we have
Dochvetlh DIlmeH for "in order to pay for that")
but is the way you see it the only possible one
(as far as canonical support goes)?

If I take the liberty to consider Q to be an infinitive,
I see the comparative expression as two noun-'noun'-constructions:
"the much bigness" of men, "the less bigness" of women.
How do you think about this?

> Meanwhile, we MIGHT consider this to be the canon that shows
> that it is acceptable to have multiple adjectivals following a
> noun. Most of us already thought this was the case and if
> anybody thinks this is too much of a stretch, please speak up.
> 
I would like to see the arguments against putting several
"adjectives" on a noun before I take sides :-|

> Krankor challenges us to figure out how to say, "I speak
> Klingon better than you." I recommend that tools other than
> {law'/puS} can handle that without a great deal of difficulty,
> resulting in an even more accurate description than we have
> from the original English, choosing among:
> 
> tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhchu' 'ach Dajatlhchu'be'.
-chu' tells us how sure you are about what you say.
If that's what you mean, (i.e. you obviously speak
Klingon, but you're not so sure about what I speak)
then it surely is different from the original meaning.

> tlhIngan Hol vIghojta' 'ach DaghojlI'.
I don't think it's wise to say vIghojta'...
It's too easily falsified unless you're Okrand...

> tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhbej 'ach Dajatlhlaw' neH.
again, -bej tells us, you're certain about what you say,
whereas the second part would give a nice insult }}|-{

> loQ tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaH 'ach wej DajatlhlaH.
to me, you put too much emphasise on the continuous aspect
in this statement; I don't think you need -laH here.
(By the way this sounds way too humble to be 
the warrior's tongue...:)

> 
> How many times have people faced, "You are good at
> speaking Klingon," and tried to twist it into {tlhIngan Hol
> jatlhwI' QaQ SoH} instead of the simpler {tlhIngan Hol
> Dajatlhchu'}?
again my resentment against this use of type 6 suffixes
(at least from the examples in 4.2.6, if there is more
canon to support your understanding, I apologize, but would
like to see it - there's much on can overlook in TKD...:-)
> 
> charghwI'

By the way, I think the A and B parts of the comparative
can be filled by sentences, don't they? (If Okrand meant
(simple) "nouns", why did he write "things"?)

so how do you like

jatlhmeH tlhingan Hol vIlo' QaQ law' Dalo' QaQ puS.

(I think Guido uses something similar in his post)
If you think A and B can be nouns only, then how does
-ghach help with verbs which require an object?

Do you consider tlhingan Hol vIlo'ghach one noun?
If you think it's a noun-noun-construction, why
not allow complete sentences? Where do you dra the line?

well...
and now for something completely different..

most of you use jatlh exactly like the english speak.

My dictionary lists about eight different uses of
to speak! Which ones do you believe can be expressed
by jatlh, which ones can't, and why do you think so?

e.g. can you say 
juStaHbogh Duj yIjatlh!		speak the passing ship!

thank you for your time

				Marc 'Doychlangan'

--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender	[email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------

Back to archive top level