tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 09 17:48:28 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIH/SoH in comparatives
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jIH/SoH in comparatives
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:47:45 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' lay'tel SIvten:
>I have found two canon comparatives in which {jIH} or {SoH} fills the 'A'
>or 'B' position of the formula "A Q law' B Q puS". And I realized that A
>and B are not subjects of Q at all, even though Q is a verb. Just one more
>odd thing about law'/puS comparatives.
Mmm... I would argue that they still are subjects, but that they do not
conform to modern grammar.
Have you received the latest issue of HolQeD yet? I've written a brief
article on the evidence for OSV word order in Old Klingon. In that, I
speculate that the comparative construction is a throwback to {no' Hol};
I've also theorised that the subject/object prefixes are also evidence for
that old word order.
If that is indeed the case, then the comparative construction might well
predate the addition of verb prefixes to the verb, and only free pronouns
might have been used at that time.
>Having said that, has anyone ever used something like {bItIn law' jItIn
>puS} instead of {SoH tIn law' jIH tIn puS}?
I don't think I've ever seen it. Others may have, though.
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
½ Price FOXTEL Digital Installation On-Line Limited Offer:
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;9412514;9681905;p?http://www.foxtel.tv