tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 11 10:23:11 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Questions with law'/puS

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ghunchu'wI' wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:
> 
>> I'm not saying you definitely can use {-'a'} on {law'/puS}, just  
>> that I see no fundamental objection to it.
> 
> I see SuStel and Doq both objecting fundamentally to it.  I share  
> their objection.  In a comparative/superlative construction, {law'}  
> and {puS} don't act like verbs.  I just don't see them working with  
> verb suffixes, especially type 9 ones.

Let's say that it's not so much a fundamental objection as a gut 
feeling. The idea that you can't disprove it by pointing to a lack of 
evidence is valid, but by that logic you can also say that *{-cha} might 
be a perfectly valid suffix that means "spoken by a Northern Klingon." 
After all, we hear that suffix all the time on TV Star Trek. That one 
cannot disprove a negative is no reason to advocate the positive, even 
in an "I don't object to it" kind of way.

My *hunch* is that, given the relatively large number of example 
law'/puS sentences that either follow the rules laid down in TKD, or are 
marked explicitly as exceptional and ungrammatical, one cannot add 
{-'a'} to {law'} and {puS} to make the sentence interrogative.

It was said that there is a canonical example of a comparative sentence 
using {law'be'} and {puSbe'}. What is it, and where is it found?

-- 
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush

Back to archive top level