[86267] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Questions with law'/puS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Tue Jul 14 23:03:06 2009
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <355075.58147.qm@web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:01:49 -0400
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
You are ignoring that {-be'} is a suffix that can be used on verbs
used as adjectives, as in {cha' yIH lI'be'}. "Two useless tribbles" is
really "two not-useful tribbles". You can use {-be'} on verbs while
they are being used as adjectives. You can't use most verb suffixes on
verbs while they are being used as adjectives.
In other words, I can say "The weapon is big," and "The weapon is not
big," and "Is the weapon big?"
I can also say, "the big weapon" and "the not-big weapon", but I can't
really "the is-it-big? weapon".
See the problem?
Hmmm. On the tape, I remember it as being {cha' yIHmey lI'be'}. That
pretty much proves that my earlier "memory" was indeed false.
Anyway, Okrand explicitly told us NOT to analyze {law'/puS} with any
kind of parallel English grammar, and I don't see that he's done that
here. You could just as easily describe it as:
You say to me, "My ridgy many forehead, your ridgy few forehead!"
To which I answer, "Your ridgy not-many forehead, my ridgy not-few
forehead!"
So, if this is closer to the "meaning" of {law'/puS} in a raw
translated form, how would you make an interrogative out of an
adjective?
Doq
On Jul 12, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:
>
> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, qe'San (Jon Brown) <qeSan@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> See Maltz's Reward Part IV HolQeD 13:1 pg 10:
>>
>> QuchwIj vIl law' QuchlIj vIl puS
>> my forehead is reidgier than your forehead
>>
>> To diagree with this notion, that is, to assert that your
>> forehead is not
>> ridgier than mine (it may be the same), one would use the
>> construction A Q
>> law'be' B Q puSbe' (A's Q is not many, B's Q is not
>> few) (-be' not):
>>
>> QuchlIj vIl law'be' QuchwIj vIl puSbe'
>> your forehead isn't ridgier than my forehead
>>
>
> Please note that, although I was warned in the direst terms not to
> think of the contrastive verb pair in {law'/puS} as having the force
> of verbs, or to try to analyze the construction at all, MO has
> analyzed it, and that is evidently how MO thinks of them. From MO's
> own words, it appears that the Q word takes on a nominative meaning
> (the abstract quality described by the adjective verb), which is
> modified by the A as if it were an N1-N2 compound, for which the
> comparative verb acts like a predicate. Think of it as a kind of
> topic phrase: "As for your forehead's ridginess, it is few." It
> doesn't matter how different the syntax is from any other Klingon
> sentences, since the comparative is unique, because Okrand has
> actually parsed the syntax for us.
>
> I still believe that the interrogative is such a fundamental
> discourse mode that I would be shocked speechless if {law''a'/
> puS'a'} turned out to be illegal. But, given the lack of
> corroboration, I probably would refrain from using it under normal
> circumstances.
>
> -- ter'eS
>
>
>
