comparatives

[Andrew Strader <strader@decode.is>]

>>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