tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 19 16:47:15 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- From: Andrew Strader <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: comparatives
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:13:03 +0000
- Organization: Decode
>You really are extending the grammar farther than it goes. Comparatives are
>extremely simple. They are one trick ponies. You are trying to get them to
>more tricks than they can handle, according to Klingon norms.
As I always try to consider your points, rest assured you are understood. But
I still feel there's something to address, and I'm not sure how. Is it an
issue of grammaticality? I don't think so, since my sentence *is*
grammatical. If it weren't, I know you would have shown me the specific
problem. The examples Voragh posted showed that Klingon comparatives indeed
do contain relatively complex noun phrases in their A and B positions. I
think the issue is probably one of complexity. But seriously, all I did was
put relative clauses in with the nouns under comparison. Is *that* really so
horrendously complicated? Consider that the English translation of my
sentence was exactly as grammatically complex as the Klingon, and *it*
wouldn't have won any awards for obfuscation. I concur that what I write may
be very complex. But to call it "too" complex is strictly opinion. Just
because a list member fails to comprehend a particular Klingon sentence at
first sight, that's no reason to consider it "too" complex.
>cha' nuv poQbej, 'ach pa' bebmaj wIpepmeH, latlhmey SIchnISmoH
>nIvwI'pu'. pab ghongDI' vay', yISovmoH. mu'tlhegh QIp qonDI' vay',
qatlho', Qov. mu'tlhegh napHa'ghach qIchHa' vay' 'e' vItul. pab vIghongbe'jaj
'ach beb peplu'jaj.
>My editorial comments on Hamlet were universally refuted, then ignored.
>why, despite my name being on the title page for reasons I don't quite
pIch Daghajbe'. ngugh vutpa'Daq tlhoy law' vutwI'pu'.