[tlhIngan Hol] The book of our good captain

[De'vID]

On 14 July 2016 at 15:11, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 7/14/2016 4:27 AM, De'vID wrote:
> 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,"

Just before that, it says "The grammatical construction is a bit aberrant".
The way it's written, it suggests that the only problem is the missing
{-taH}.

I agree that we shouldn't generalise from one example, but I think Okrand
was leaving himself wriggle room here to be a bit more flexible with the
law'/puS construction.

> 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,"

And here, that verb is {qaq}. Embedded within this comparative are the two
implied sentences {Qam[taH]vIS qaq Hegh} and {tor[taH]vIS qaq yIn}.

> I consider this proverb too unreliable to form any conclusions about
> new grammar.

On that I agree.

--
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160714/1eb1c352/attachment-0035.htm>