tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 20 12:30:53 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
> > >reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS.
>> maybe i have already asked this... but this sentence seems strange to
>> me. i read it as "always - on someone else's face - fire is the
>> hottest". i think i can decompose the sentence this way and analise
>> only the end: /qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS/. it means "fire is the
>> hottest", which means that there is nothing hotter than fire. do you
>> know i mean? the whole sentence means "there is nothing hotter than
>> fire on someone elses face", which implies that on the own face there
>> can be something hotter than fire. this is not the meaning of the
>> translation "the fire is always hotter on someone else's face".
>I understand what you're saying, and I agree.
>Apparently the /Hoch/ is greatly shortened from
>... Hoch qabDaq qul ...
>But even then I am a little confused. The fire is hotter on someone else's
>face, as opposed to.. my face, your face? With either of these, why would
>we use the word Hoch? Plus, would the fire feel the hottest when it's on
>your own face?
the fire is hottest on someone else's face, it's not "hotter" but
"hottest". there are at least two ways of interpretation:
1. there is nothing hotter than _fire_
2. there is nothing hotter than _the fire on someone else's face_
in the first case it seems that the locative noun-phrase /latlh
qabDaq/ describes the whole rest of the sentence. in this case, you
couldn't find anything hotter than fire, when you look at someone
in the second case /latlh qabDaq qul/ must be a noun-phrase. it's
"the fire on someone else's face". i think the latter interpretation
can this be correct?
>I just use the other phrases available.
in order to describe comparison and superlative?