tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 03 06:25:34 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Phrases



Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >From: Irene Gates <[email protected]>
> >>>>> [Better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved.]  [...]
> >>> My entry:
> >>> muSHa'lu'chugh 'ach lujlu'chugh, ghu' QaQ law'; not muSHa'lu'chugh,
> >>> ghu' QaQ puS.[...]
> >I've seen entire {-meH}-clauses in there, but I don't suppose they
> >were canon.  ~mark, vuDlIj yIghaqneS.
> 
> vIlajqanglaw' jIH.  Maybe because we need all the help we can get
> in getting stuff we can use with that strange law'/puS construction.

I can't help thinking that _tKD_ presents the most basic form of the
comparative construction and that actually one can have more stuff
in both halves, but it's hard to be sure, of course.

> I don't recall canon either, though.  But isn't that sentence about
> drinking fake ale and drinking water in a law'/puS form?

<copying it from SuStel's post>
{tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS.}  Hm.  Should that not be
{tlhutlhlu'meH ...}?  Otherwise who's the subject of the purpose clause?

And what about (quoting from memory) {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn
qaq puS} `Better to die standing that to live kneeling', with {-vIS}-
clauses (short for {-taHvIS}, we are told) in both branches of the
comparative?

> >toH!  QongDaqDaq Hegh luneH'a' tlhInganpu'?
> 
> Dying in action, eh?

not QongDaqmey lo' tlhInganpu' 'e' yIlIjQo'.  QongtaHvIS ravDaq Qot,
nga'chuqtaHvIS ravDaq Qotlaw' je.  QongDaq ngaS lengbogh tera'nganpu'
ma'meH mebjuHmey neH luchenmoHlu'bogh.

--'Iwvan

-- 
"mIw'e' lo'lu'ta'bogh batlh tlhIHvaD vIlIH [...]
 poH vIghajchugh neH jIH, yab boghajchugh neH tlhIH"
                                  (Lewis Carroll, "_Snark_ wamlu'")
Ivan A Derzhanski  <[email protected], [email protected]>
Dept for Math Lx,  Inst for Maths & CompSci,  Bulg Acad of Sciences
Home:  cplx Iztok  bl 91,  1113 Sofia,  Bulgaria


Back to archive top level