tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 20 18:03:49 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: comparative as question
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: comparative as question
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:03:32 +1000
- Bcc:
chup ghunchu'wI', ja':
>But now that you've suggested it:
>raSvam'e' raSvetlh'e' je, nuq tIn law' latlh tIn puS?
jIjang, jIja':
>I like it. I *really* like it.
ja' lay'SIv:
>'e' vIparHa'qu' je jIH.
jang ter'eS, ja':
>'ach vIparqu'. I don't have any problem with the
>{raSvam'e' raSvelth'e' je} part, but the rest just looks
>wrong. The {latlh} seems the wrong choice: ?"which one
>is the big one, the other is the small one". I'd
>repeat the {nuq} if I was going to use this: ?"which one
>is the big one, which one is the small one". Mixing an interrogative and a
>positive like this just looks weird.
I wouldn't have said so. In English, we can say "which is bigger than the
other?", and I suppose if we were still treating the comparative construct
as two sentences, then we'd have to use {nuq} twice - but I would say that
{nuq tIn law' latlh tIn puS} is better translated as "what is big *while*
the other is small?", since the whole thing is one unsplittable connected
unit in modern Klingon.
>That initial {nuq} seems wrong, too. I realize that
>it can fit in the N slot, since it's a noun, but it's
>really being used like an adjective: "as for this table
>and that table, _which one_ is the big one...". And we
>know from MO's past comments that you can't use {nuq}
>with an adjectival meaning like that.
That's a valid point. But would you permit {nuq tIn law' latlh tIn puS} on
its own (ignoring the issue with {latlh})? The meaning there is "what is
bigger than the other(s)?" Since {raSvam'e' raSvetlh'e' je} is a header,
{nuq} is not actually grammatically tied to either of them, so can still
function as a normal question word, IMHO. {nuq} is only linked to {raSvam'e'
raSvetlh'e' je} semantically, not grammatically. All that's happening is
that the scope of {nuq} is being limited. I see it as similar to the English
utterance "What do you want to drink, lemonade or beer?"
>I sent an alternative at the beginning of this thread that
>I don't think ever made it to the list. If it did, I
>apologize for repeating myself. How about:
>tIn raSvam. 'ach tInqu''a' raSvetlh?
It's good, but it still lacks the idea of comparison that's captured by the
{A Q law' B Q puS} construct. Or rather, the comparison here is implicit,
not explicit.
Savan,
QeS lagh
taghwI' pabpo' / Beginners' Grammarian
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Dating? Try Lavalife ? get 7 days FREE! Sign up NOW.
http://www.lavalife.com/clickthru/clickthru.act?id=ninemsn&context=an99&a=20233&locale=en_AU&_t=33473