tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 18 17:47:55 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
comparatives
- From: Andrew Strader <[email protected]>
- Subject: comparatives
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:46:55 +0000
- Organization: Decode
>>qatlh nger lughbe' qonbogh HaDwI' DIv law', nger lughbe' pabbogh neH HaDwI'
DIv puS?
>Note in an old grammarian's corner that Krankor was very disappointed to
hear
>from Okrand that you can't stretch a comparative sentence that far. You
often
Ok, this whole thing really does need to be addressed on a number of levels.
I was really trying to keep things under control and remain reasonably
simple. Could I have written this sentence differently? Yes, in infinitely
many different ways, in fact. Is my sentence complex? I suppose so,
relatively speaking. What I'm countering is the claim that I have stretched
the comparative construction too far. I think I have stayed perfectly within
the bounds of the grammar.
>You can't use an adjective on A or B in A Q law' B Q puS.
Actually, that's not even what I did, and to my knowledge I don't do this in
general. I don't deny that my sentence is difficult to parse, even
syntactically ambiguous due to the -bogh's. But the noun phrases under
comparison do not have adjectivals. Rather, they are heads of relative
clauses. Here is the parse of my sentence.
ADV=(qatlh)
A=(nger lughbe' qonbogh HaDwI')
Q=(DIv)
(law'),
B=(nger lughbe' pabbogh neH HaDwI')
Q=(DIv)
(puS)?
"Why is a student who formulates an incorrect theory more guilty than a
student who merely follows an incorrect theory?"
If you think THAT sentence is impossibly complex, I know you have never read
and comprehended Khamlet! {{:-)
Contextually, my sentence is not really ambiguous because guilt is a quality
applicable to animate nouns (students, in this case) rather than inanimate
ones (viz. theories).
While I don't regard Krankor's personal conversations with Okrand as true
canon, I do see the justification for forbidding adjectivals in comparatives.
The Q is occupying what appears to be an adjectival position, so a real
adjectival in the noun phrase would kind of get in the way. This restriction
need not worry us as long as A and B are still allowed to be heads of
relative clauses. And I know that they are because of Skybox 7:
"DujvamDaq tlhIngan nuH tu'lu'bogh pov law' Hoch pov puS."
ghuy'Do wa'
--
Andrew Strader