tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 19 16:47:15 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: comparatives

charghwI' writes:
>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.

qon Qov:
>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.

qonqa' charghwI':
>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'.

Andrew Strader

Back to archive top level