[97511] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Story: ghuv = The Recruit - 24
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Wed Nov 6 08:43:32 2013
In-Reply-To: <003e01ceb02d$547dcab0$fd796010$@flyingstart.ca>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:42:53 +0100
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 13 Sep 2013 05:00, "Robyn Stewart" <robyn@flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> naDev ngeD law' tojbogh pa'Daq ngeD puS.
>
> This is a use of the law'/puS comparative not attested in canon. I'd be
> interested to know if anyone objects to it. You'll remember that the formula
> to say that A is more Q than B is <A Q law' B Q puS>, where A nd B are nouns
> or noun phrases and Q is a be-verb, a quality. Here A and B are nouns, but
> in a locative sense.
I partly want to say that {A Q law' B Q puS} only really makes as much
sense to me as {Q A} and {Q B}, and {ngeD naDev} and {ngeD tojbogh
pa'Daq} both feel like something is missing. It's not {naDev} that's
easy, it's {naDev Qu'} or {naDev mIw} or something like that.
OTOH if {QamvIS Hegh} and {torvIS yIn} are okay to use in place of A
and B, then it seems the grammar of the {law'/puS} construction isn't
that strict.
I had no trouble at all understanding exactly what you meant.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
