tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 25 08:01:33 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: suffixes in comparative sentences


Anthony Appleyard wrote:

> But "the ship which is bigger than Maltz's" (1) **{Duj'e' tIn
> law'bogh matlh Duj tIn puS} indeed turns out to come from the
> same shipyard as that old marauder "the ship in which I fled"
> (2) **{Duj'e'Daq jIHaw'pu'bogh}, as both contain an illegally
> placed {-'e'}.
>   (2) has twinned class N5 suffixes: ref. much previous discussion.
>   (1) has a class N5 suffix ({-'e'}) on a noun which is nonfinal
> in a genitive sequence, if the (tIn}'s are treated as nouns. If
> the {tIn}'s are treated as adjectival verbs and the {law'} and
> the {puS} as adverbs, {Duj} is no longer in a genitival position,
> and (0) would be **{DujwIj tIn'ba law' matlh Duj tIn(ba') puS},
> and (1) would be **{Duj'e' tInbogh law' matlh Duj tIn puS}

What copy of TKD are you using?  "N5 ... on a noun which is nonfinal in a
genetive sequence"?  I'm all for using linguistic terminology when it serves
to clarify our understanding (and I'm admitedly guilty of clouding the
waters while trying to present such terminology), but this use is neither
correct nor clarifying.

You're bending the law'/puS farther than we know we can.  In both your (1)
and (2), the {-'e'} is non-obligatory.  The problem with *{Duj tIn law'bogh
matlh Duj tIn puS} isn't {-'e'}, but {-bogh}.  You're trying to do too much
with one sentence.  Just because English can represent this concept with one
sentence, doesn't mean that Klingon must.

Duj vIlegh.  Dujvam tIn law' matlh Duj tIn puS.
"I see a ship.  It's bigger than Maltz's ship."

With *{DujDaq jIHaw'pu'bogh} "which I had fled at the ship" we see a
headless relative.  The head noun must be the subject or object, not a
locative.  Again, this has nothing to do with {-'e'}.

{tIn} as a noun, {law'} and {puS} as adverbs, indeed.

wejpuH.

--Holtej

Back to archive top level