[tlhIngan Hol] What do you make of this ?

[mayqel qunenoS]

SuStel:
> because the rules of noun-noun
> constructions do not allow us to put a type 5
> noun suffix on any but the final noun.

this is beautiful ! I would never have thought that the {SorDaq vIghro'
law' law', chalDaq bo'Degh law' puS}, violates this rule.

Somehow, I had the impression that at the {... law' ... puS} construction,
the rules which govern the noun-noun relationship do not apply.

Anyway, now I understand. thanks !

qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 23 Nov 2016 4:13 pm, "SuStel" <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 11/23/2016 6:25 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> jIH:
>
> SorDaq vIghro' law' law', chalDaq bo'Degh law' puS
>
> SuStel
>
> No. You've left out the {vIleghbogh}.
>
> There is something here I don't understand.
>
> If we say {vIghro' law' law', bo'Degh law' puS}, then this means "the
> cats are more numerous than the birds". Why can't we just place a noun
> with a {-Daq} in front of the {vIghro'} and {bo'Degh}, with the
> sentence acquiring the meaning "at that place the cats are more, than
> the birds that are at that (the other place)" ?
>
>
> Because the comparative structure does not include nouns with *-Daq*.
>
> The structure is "A Q *law'* B Q *puS*," where A and B are noun phrases.
> Except for the specific changes given to us by Okrand, this structure is
> invariable. It is not "X*Daq* A Q *law'* Y*Daq* B Q *puS*."
>
> Now, noun phrases can include nouns with *-Daq.* For instance, *SorDaq
> vIghro' vIleghbogh** cat which I see in a tree.* But **SorDaq vIghro'* is
> not a noun phrase. It does not mean *cat in a tree* because the rules of
> noun-noun constructions do not allow us to put a type 5 noun suffix on any
> but the final noun.
>
> So if you want the individual parts of a comparative sentence to refer to
> different places, you're going to have to do so with noun phrases. These
> can be very sophisticated:
>
>
> *SorDaq bIHtaHbogh vIghro''e' law' law' chalDaq bIHtaHbogh bo'Degh'e' law'
> puS **there are more cats in the tree than birds in the sky*
>
> Alternatively, depending on your emphasis, you can abandon the comparative
> construct altogether:
>
>
> *SorDaq law' vIghro'; chalDaq puS bo'Degh **there are many cats in the
> tree; there are few birds in the sky*
>
> There is one exception to the invariability of the comparative
> construction that I can think of:
>
>
> *QamvIS Hegh QaQ law' torvIS yIn QaQ puS **Better to die on our feet than
> live on our knees.* (STVI and TKW)
>
> This sentence is a disaster on many levels, and Okrand even points out in
> TKW that it is ungrammatical, though he only discusses the *-vIS* lacking
> a *-taH.* But by all the rules we know, **QamtaHvIS Hegh* and **tortaHvIS
> yIn *are not real relative clauses. Can you insert *-vIS* clauses into
> the comparative formula like that? We don't know. Nothing backs this
> sentence up.
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161123/cc47d1bc/attachment.htm>