tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 31 21:17:20 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: law', puS, and time stamps...



SuStel is completely right in his critique of my law'/puS construction. I
was being lazy and basically trying to do exactly the sort of thing Krankor
wanted to do with law/puS in one of his Grammarian's Corner articles before
Okrand clarified just how limited law'/puS is. In fact, I think that
Okrand's example SuStel pointed out doesn't really follow the restrictions
Okrand spelled out in his explanation of law'/puS, but that's another
matter.

So, how would I say, "She is more beautiful now than she was 15 years ago,"?
Hmmmm.

wa'maH vaghben 'IH be'vam vIneHqu'chugh vaj loQ 'IH be'vam 'e' vIHarlaH 'ach
DaH 'IHbej be'vam. tIqwIjDaq muDuQ qabDaj. vI'uch vIneH 'ach batlh qechvam
vIpeghnIStaH. latlh nayta'. latlh He wIvta', 'ej He pIm vIwIvnIS.

qay'be'. bIQ'a'Daq latlh bIQDep lutu'lu' 'ej latlh vISuqlaHbe'chugh, nIteb
jIQuchlaH. mutIchpu' be'vam 'e' vIqawchu'. 'IHchugh, jISaHbe'. quvwIj potlh
law' ghaH potlh puS 'ej jItaHnISbejtaH. ram be'vam. ram 'IHchoHghachDaj je.

charghwI' 'utlh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: law', puS, and time stamps...
>
>
> From: "Patrick Masterson" <[email protected]>
>
> > I've seen use of time stamps and adverbs on nouns in a law'/puS
> construction
> > to show change over time, as in a statement charghwI' made:
>
>
> A "time stamp" is what we call a noun or noun phrase that indicates a time
> or time period in which something happened.  Some adverbials work
> like time
> stamps (or time stamps work like those adverbials).
>
> A time stamp is going to come in the "header" space before the
> Object-Verb-Subject portion of the sentence.  Furthermore, it
> tends to come
> before everything else (and I THINK this is stated by Okrand,
> though I'm not
> sure where).  There is no grammar to cover time stamps: knowing what time
> something happens in a Klingon sentence is entirely based upon the
> listener's ability to understand context.
>
> DaHjaj 'IH be'.
> The woman is beautiful today.
>
> /DaHjaj/ is a noun that is performing the grammatical function of "not
> subject and not object."  It has no other grammatical function.  It's the
> MEANING of the word itself, "today," that gets the listener to understand
> what the word is there for.
>
>
> > DaH be'vam 'IH law' wa'maH vaghben be'vam 'IH puS.
> >
> > Which apparently is "The woman is now more beautiful than she
> was fifteen
> > years ago." Is this grammatical, or was charghwI' just sort of
> winging it?
>
>
> He was winging it.  law'/puS constructions allow for only one
> formula: N1 Q
> law' N2 Q puS.  N1 and N2 are nouns or noun phrases.
>
> A time stamp is not just a word like /ben/ or /DaHjaj/; it is such a word
> used as a header to indicate a time context.  In charghwI''s sentence, his
> indications of time are not following the formula, which to all
> appearances
> does not allow variation in its components (though, as Klingon for the
> Galactic Traveler tells us, other sorts of variations are possible).  He
> has: A N1 Q law' T N2 Q puS, where A is an adverbial and T is a
> noun that is
> SUPPOSED to represent a time context.
>
> Although we can certainly leave room for artistic expression, a strict
> interpretation of the law'/puS construction yields a very different
> sentence.  The big difference is in the second part: N2 Q puS.  Since any
> nouns other than the noun (phrase) N2 are not allowed, one MUST interpret
> /wa'maH vaghben be'vam/ as a SINGLE noun phrase.  We have
> precedent for what
> this would mean: Power Klingon has /cha'vatlhben HIq vItlhutlh/
> "I'll drink
> two century old ale."  It seems to be a fairly clear Noun-Noun
> construction,
> like /baS 'In/ "metal drum" or /Sor Hap/ "wood (tree matter)."
> Noun-Noun is
> like the Genitive case, and needn't imply actual possession.
>
> So in this sentence, /wa'maH vaghben be'vam/ would seem to be able to mean
> only "this fifteen year old woman."  I remember pausing when I read this,
> having to parse it again, because the meaning was clearly ludicrous.  We
> occasionally hear about charghwI''s romances here on the list,
> but never has
> he given reason to make us suspect that he dates girls so young!  At this
> point, I realized he must have meant what you realized he meant.  By a
> strict interpretation, though, it can't mean that.
>
> The other point is that /DaH/, the adverbial, cannot be a part of the
> law'/puS formula (unless it were modifying a verb in a noun phrase, which
> it's not--an example might be /DaH mumuSbogh be'/ "woman who now
> hates me").
> Because it comes at the beginning of the entire sentence, it can be
> interpreted as the adverbial for the entire sentence.  We've seen phrases
> set before law'/puS constructions modifying all of them.  The one
> that comes
> to mind is /tlhutlhmeH HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS/ "Drinking
> fake ale is
> better than drinking water" (The Klingon Way).  It's not an adverbial in
> front, but it IS a dependent clause, which is dependent on a verb
> just as an
> adverbial is.  We may even have an example using an adverbial that I can't
> think of offhand.
>
> Thus, we end up reading the following:
>
> DaH be'vam 'IH law' wa'maH vaghben be'vam 'IH puS.
> Now this woman is more beautiful than this fifteen year old woman.
>
> Again, I UNDERSTOOD what he meant, after pausing to be sure, and wouldn't
> complain if I heard it in conversation.  But, strictly speaking by
> everything we understand, it's not grammatical.
>
>
> > I made a similar statement while translating more X-Files
> quotes (because
> I
> > know how much you all *love* it when I do that.):
> >
> > vIt tu'lu'taH 'ach DaH vIt Qob law' ret vIt Qob puS.
> >
> > The truth is still out there, but it's never been more dangerous.
> > (More literally, the truth continues to be found, but the truth now is
> more
> > dangerous than it was in the past.)
>
>
> This exactly the same problem.  I'd read this as, "The truth
> continues to be
> discovered, but now the truth is more dangerous than the truth of
> the past."
> Luckily for you, this almost means what you wanted it to mean!
>
>
> > (Now you know why I asked that ret/pIq question a few days ago. :)
>
>
> Indeed.  Be sure you watch for the difference between a time
> stamp noun and
> a noun used as a noun in a Noun-Noun construction as subject or object (or
> in a law'/puS construction).
>
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 1412.4
>



Back to archive top level