tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 25 14:26:51 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: A nIb gem
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 02:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
>From: [email protected]
>
>loD jen law' be' jen puS (TKD grammar rules)
>
>KGT 178-179 says antonyms are used in slang as replacements for law'/puS in
>comparisons and superlatives
>
>loD jen law' be' jen nIb (my own invention)
>
>This means to me "The man is the same height (amount of jen = tall) as the
>woman."
>Obviously, {nIb} is not the antonym of {law'}.
KGT says that these slang replacements work *precisely because* of the
unique grammar structure of law'/puS sentences, making them unmistakable
and incabale of being confused for any other meaning. By changing the
meaning and introducing a new concept which shares the same grammar
structure, you have altered that state of affairs, making it even less
likely that this slang would exist (and we know it does).
The alternate law'/puS constructions do not add one bit of support to this
theory (i.e. it is no stronger knowing what we know about alternate
law'/puS than it was before we knew), and if anything the existence of
these alternate forms weakens the theory, since they could only exist if
law'/puS were used only for a very specific meaning.
>Furthermore, KGT 127-133 supplies plenty of examples of similes. The general
>pattern is jen loD; rur Sor.
Right: we're TOLD how to make comparatives like this, and now you're saying
"why don't we break some rules for another way?"
>Still, I couldn't erase from my mind the gem made possible by putting {nIb}
>in the second position of law'/puS constructions.
Not a gem, to me.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBNAHeHsppGeTJXWZ9AQF1fAL/U82ii5czXCn9B/380N2rbOet2BMdRe02
Afzas9gSdmRhp2mtA35DI9XZBmHvz7Z6mCXFfIWq93BRFYLkgvVRr/2wgCe3H6Y9
EMqkjIRPcj/CQKp48miaGYsA6WSyMPOC
=T1io
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----