[1744] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: More on Greater Than/Less Than
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Oct 19 01:47:08 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 01:13:39 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM"
ghItlhta' [PaulClegg]:
>'ejyo'waw' Qaw'ta' la' jaq law' The bolder commander destroyed the starbase.
>
>Basically, simplifying the grater/less structure into simply a statement
of two quantities. "law'" and "puS" become adjectives of adjectives; they
>modify the state that an adjective employs, in a way similar to Hom and 'a'
>are as noun suffixes.
All I can say is, majQa'. The idea that {la' jaq law'} means "bolder commander"
and can be used as a noun phrase would be gargantuanly useful. However,
doesn't {la' jaq law'} seem to really mean "many bold officers?" I'd like
to think your highly employable idea is correct, but considering the
grammar TKD describes, it seems that the semantic value "many bold officers"
would reign supreme over "bolder commander." Oops, that should be "many
bold COMMANDERS" would reign supreme over... This terminal doesn't let me
back up to a previous line; once I hit return, any mistakes on that line
are forever written in stone, metaphorically speaking.
The main issue I'm talking about here is how {law'} or {puS} used as
comparitive modifiers of adjectives could be distinguished from quantity
modifiers of nouns, i.e., how can you tell if {law'} in {la' jaq law'}
is modifying {la'} or {jaq}?????
If this problem did not exist, I would fully accept your idea, albeit
remain aware that it is unofficial and maybe see what Okrand would say
abbout it. Maybe someone could ask him anyways.
!@#$%^&*(Guido1)*&^%$#@!
