tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 26 14:58:26 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: suffixes in comparative sentences
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: suffixes in comparative sentences
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:30:08 -0400
From: Anthony Appleyard <[email protected]>
> "David Trimboli" <[email protected]> replied:-
>> This is an extreme implication that
>> {law'/puS} can't be played with except as indicated in KGT.
>
> But not an actual statement.
No, not a statement. But if one is interested in drawing conclusions, why
not draw those conclusions which seem most likely?
>To me, a {law'/puS}-type construction is still
>easy to recognise with a suffix on the {law'} and/or the {puS} or on the
main
>adjectival verb:
Easy to recognize is not the same as correct. "I be happy" is easy to
understand, and is plain wrong.
> "My ship is obviously bigger than Maltz's" would be (0)
>**{DujwIj tIn law'ba' matlh Duj tIn puS(ba')}
What makes you think this isn't {DujwIj tInba' law' matlh Duj tInba' puS}?
Or {DujwIj tIn law' matlh Duj tIn puSba'}? Or {DujwIj tInba' law'ba' matlh
Duj tInba' puSba'}? Or . . .
The fact is, you're making it up because you want Klingon to do the same
thing English can do: namely, qualify and modify comparative and superlative
statements. There's absolutely no evidence that Klingon can do this, and
there is evidence to the contrary.
> 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.
Your sentence does, but that's not why "the ship in which I fled" doesn't
work. Just sticking {-'e'} on a noun does not turn it into a head noun.
Sometimes {-'e'} may be used to clarify the fact that the noun is the head
noun, but it is not used to *create* the head noun.
"The ship in which I fled" does not work for a very good reason: Okrand says
it doesn't. That is, he says he can't make the relative clause work with
the head noun being anything other than the subject or object of the clause.
> (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.
Why would they be treated as nouns?
>If the {tIn}'s are treated as
>adjectival verbs and the {law'} and the {puS} as adverbs,
Who says this is what's happening, either? The only way the {law'/puS}
sentence has ever been explained is in terms of "noun A's quality is many,
noun B's quality is few." Okrand has gone out of his way to show that these
words are NOT being used in ordinary verb, adverbial, or other functions.
{law'} isn't performing some secret ritual in the midst of this sentence,
it's simply part of a plug-in formulation which you must follow without
exactly. (And because this formulation is so recognizable, you can
occasionally substitute in other verbs into the formula as a form of slang.
These verbs also do not retain their meaning during this use, they are
simply placeholders for the "greater" and "lesser" concepts.
>{Duj} is no longer
>in a genitival position,
Not that it was in the first place.
>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}
> Best ask Okrand.
SuStel
Stardate 98483.4