tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 01 19:53:51 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: ghIj
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jiri Baum [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 9:48 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: KLBC: ghIj
>
>
> Jiri:
> > > taHmeH bIlbo' yoH law' reH bIlbo' yoH puS
>
> Marc:
> > ?? "The Bilbo for continuing is braver than the always Bilbo"
>
> Well, basically. In parallel with the superlative formula, except instead
> of X and Hoch, I contrasted time/situation stamps, taHmeH and reH.
>
> DaHjaj bIlbo' yoH law' wa'Hu' bIlbo' yoH puS
> Today Bilbo is braver than yesterday.
>
> DaHjaj bIlbo' yoH law' reH bIlbo' yoH puS
> Today Bilbo is the bravest he ever was.
I really could not follow this one. {reH} means "always". To my
understanding, that refers to all time, including the present. Arguably,
this could be like the use of {Hoch} to make the superlative, using time
instead of a group as the environment for the comparison. I really think I'd
probably just say {DaHjaj yoHchoHchu' bIlbo'. not yoHchu'pu'.}
The thing to keep in mind about the Klingon comparative is that it is very
limited in grammatical scope. We keep trying to extend it in clever ways,
but the truth is, it can't carry the weight. It has one job. It does it
well. It can't stray from its narrow path, however.
> taHmeH bIlbo' yoH law' reH bIlbo' yoH puS
> To continue, Bilbo is the bravest he ever was.
There's no way anybody but you will read this Klingon sentence and get that
English sentence out of it in translation. I see your logic, but you are
treating this like a code instead of like a language. You are getting a
sense of a set of rules and precedents and you are building them out to a
level of complexity this grammar doesn't support.
Besides, what does the English translation mean? I don't understand it.
> > because you apparently compare one Bilbo to another, I have a hard time
> > separating the taHmeH from the first Bilbo...
>
> Hmm, I guess I could replace the second Bilbo with a ghaH, but
> I'm not sure
> if that'd make it any clearer.
No, you are missing the point. The comparative is really built to compare
two different nouns. Not just two different words. Two different entities.
We can handle the {DaHjaj bIlbo'} vs. the {wa'Hu' bIlbo'}. There's canon to
support that. Trying to imply a parallel between {taHmeH bIlbo'} and {reH
bIlbo'}, you've left a path too slick to walk on. Everyone will stumble and
fall.
> Jiri
> --
> Jiri Baum <[email protected]>
> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
> MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
charghwI'