tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 16 08:09:46 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: nuQbogh jaj
I'd go for a simpler:
bIQeHQo'chugh 'ej vI'chugh QeHlIj, Do'Ha'. bIQeH net maS.
It just seems clearer than any of these forced comparisons.
Okrand was pretty clear when he described that {law'/puS} is
relatively limited in its utility. It is for comparing nouns by
the criterion of a verb of quality. Attempts to extend it are
misguided. There is almost always a simpler, more effective way
to express these stretched comparisons.
charghwI' 'utlh
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:05:05 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' HovqIj:
> >ghaytan wa' jaj bIjor 'ej bIQID'eghchu' qoj latlhpu' DaQIDchu'.
> >rut QeHlIj DatlhabmoH 'e' qaq law' QeHlIj DavI' 'e' qaq puS.
> >[...]
> >You probably dislike that I used a sentence with <'e'> as the subject of
> >the <law' / puS> construction, right? I wouldn't have dared to do this,
> >but I'm _quite_ sure we have canon for this (one of the skybox cards, I
> >think). If I am wrong here, I am going to accept it.
>
> I can see what you are trying to say here, and I think I see how you
> are trying to say it:
>
> "That you sometimes free your anger is preferable to that you accumulate
> your anger."
>
> Someone needs to hit you with a painstick! Unless you can come up with
> this purported canon, you're *way* off base here. {'e'} is always used
> as the object of a sentence, and by your own explanation you're trying
> to use it as a subject. That's even assuming that the noun phrases in
> a {law'/puS} construction even count as subjects.
>
> If *I* am wrong here, and there *is* canon precedent, *I* am of course
> going to accept it. :-)
>
> This sort of idea is one of the places where I think {-ghach} actually
> works well: {QeHlIj tlhabmoHghach qaq law' QeHlIj vI'moHghach qaq puS.}
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'