tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 22 20:29:38 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

law': much vs. many

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: law': much vs. many
• Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:28:44 EST

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Do we have any canon evidence that {law'} means "much" (i.e., can be used=20
with mass nouns) in addition to its meanings of "many, be many, be numerous"=
=20
(used with count nouns), besides the following two sentences, neither of whi=
ch=20
uses "much", although the noun that {law'} modifies in each case is (apparen=
tly)=20
a mass noun:

chIch vay' 'oy'moHmeH 'oy'naQ 'ul law' tlhuD 'oH.  =20
...and emit a highly=ADcharged shock for the express purpose of inflicting=20
pain.=20
(S32-7)

HoS law'qu' natlhmo' So'wI' QaptaHvIS So'wI' QaplaHbe' nuHmey. =20
Due to the tremendous energy drain of a cloaking device, weapons cannot be=20
discharged while the cloak is in operation.
(S33-4)

Another indicator that {law'} probably also means "much" is the fact that=20
{'ar} and {'Iq} have both "much" and "many" in their glosses, indicating tha=
t the=20
two are essentially the same idea in Klingon.

'ar =3D how many? how much?
'Iq =3D be too much, too many

I'm not suggesting that {law'} doesn't mean "much".  It just seems odd that=20
"much" is not in the gloss, nor is {law'} normally used with mass nouns (i.e=
.,=20
with the meaning "much") in canon.

lay'tel SIvten

• Prev by Date: Klingon WOTD: tammoH (verb)
• Next by Date: Re: law': much vs. many
• Previous by thread: Klingon WOTD: tammoH (verb)
• Next by thread: Re: law': much vs. many
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level