tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 05 21:39:26 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 129
>Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 19:53:47 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: Christopher Dicely <[email protected]>
>> Date: Fri, 3 Mar 95 12:08:42 EST
>> From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: KLBC: E pluribus unum
>>
>> wa' qum mojchoH qum law'.
>Interesting. I hate to question you on grammar (for the same reason I
>would hate to question Laura D'Andrea Tyson on economics) but shouldn't
>that be:
>wa' qum lumoj law'bogh qum(mey).
Yes, I'd say so.
>Hm..., maybe not. Looking back at TKD, law' is mighty irregular. For
>example, the main use in TKD is in comparatives where it goes in what
>would seem to be the wrong place:
>A Q law' B Q puS -- but if we take law' (v) to be many and puS (v) to be few,
>this should be:
>law' A Q 'ej pus B Q
>since the "Q of A" and "Q of B" are the subjects of their clauses. Is
>there any justification for extending this grammatical inversion outside
>of comparatives?
NO. No, no, no. No. No and no. Did I say No?
Anyway, Okrand never said anything about law' and puS was unusual apart of
the comparative structure. The comparative structure is widely regarded to
be something just so plain and simple weird that little or nothing can be
generalized from or even to it. He surely would have told us if law' and
puS were so odd as a rule; the comparative was presented as a special-case
construction, if you look.
>Another thing: isn't the suffix -choH redundant with the verb moj? Or
>wouldn't it imply something like "starting to become"? For example, if I
>said:
I'm inclined to agree with you.
~mark