[tlhIngan Hol] The book of our good captain

[SuStel]

On 7/14/2016 4:27 AM, De'vID wrote:
> On 4 July 2016 at 19:31, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>> On 7/4/2016 9:17 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>>
>> p.38 :
>>
>> {jIDoy'qu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ law' jIghuHqu'taHvIS jImugh QaQ puS}
>> I translate better when I am tired than when I'm awake
>>
>> I like this a lot ; I don't know if it is acceptable, but I like it.
>>
>>
>> It's not acceptable. The format of a comparative sentence is A Q law' B Q
>> puS. A and B must be noun phrases.
> The proverb {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS} suggests the
> formula may be somewhat more flexible when it comes to what a "noun
> phrase" is, though. A and B can't be verbs or sentences, but it seems
> that {V1-taHvIS N1 Q law' V2-taHvIS N2 Q puS} is an acceptable form.
> The commentary in TKW only says that {-taH} is missing in the proverb.
>

Given the aberrant grammar, the warning that "in proverbs, however, 
grammatical shortcuts are not uncommon," and the explanation in TKD that 
"Klingon verbs ending in Type 9 suffixes (other than 
*-'a'*/interrogative/ and *-wI'*/one who does, one which does/) always 
occur in sentences with another verb," I consider this proverb too 
unreliable to form any conclusions about new grammar. *QamvIS Hegh* and 
*torvIS yIn* are either unusual noun phrases /(death while standing, 
life while kneeling)/ without the required other verb, or they're verbal 
clauses /(dying while standing, living while kneeling)/ which aren't the 
noun phrases required by a comparative sentence. I would need something 
far clearer before ever accepting this kind of thing.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160714/3388ece3/attachment-0017.htm>