[tlhIngan Hol] The book of our good captain

[SuStel]

On 7/14/2016 11:29 AM, De'vID wrote:
>
> On 14 July 2016 at 15:11, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto: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}.


Yes, but put all those things I mentioned together and you have a highly 
suspect sentence.


> > 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}.

But you said this suggested that *QamvIS Hegh* and *torvIS yIn* 
satisfied the /noun phrase/ parts of the comparative, as if such phrases 
could stand alone as noun phrases. Besides this crazy proverb, there is 
no evidence that *-vIS* can do this.




-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20160714/dece66ec/attachment-0017.htm>