[tlhIngan Hol] So sarcophagus you say ? hmm..

mayqel qunenoS mihkoun at gmail.com
Tue Aug 1 00:43:51 PDT 2017

> Initially the law'/law' construction confused me, but finally I remembered that instead of the
> classic law'/puS, there are alternate versions such as the law'/law'. So, in this case the meaning
> obviously is "klingons are as varied as the humans". The choice of the double {law'} instead of a
> double {puS} obviously is made to express that both klingons and humans are "varied to a great degree".
> Instead of "varied to a small degree", which would be the case if we had a double {puS}.
niqolay Q:
> A double {puS} construction doesn't mean "to a small degree", it means the comparison has negative
> connotations. {tlhInganpu' Sar puS Humanpu' Sar puS} would mean "Klingons are as varied as humans
> (and that's a bad thing)." Using double {law'} is a more value-neutral comparison.

maj. I didn't remember that.

> Isn't here the {law'} on the {latlhpu'} somewhat redundant ? Doesn't the {-pu'} inherently mean "many" ?
> So, why say {latlhpu' law'} instead of just {latlhpu'} ?
niqolay Q:
> {-pu'} means plural, not many. Two or three is plural, but not many.

I understand the grammar of {-pu'}, however I continue to believe that
here the use of {law'} was redundant. Let me explain why.

Suppose I write {vIghro'mey nIHpu' Humanpu'} for "humans stole the
cats". True, the "humans" can be only two or three or they can be
thousands. However, when someone reads the sentence his mind will form
the abstract notion of "plural", without it actually focusing on a
specific amount. So, here, if we only had {latlhpu'} instead of
{latlhpu' law'}, the result for the reader would be the same.

If we wanted to specifically express the "many others", i think it
would be better to just write {latlh law'}. In this construction the
meaning remains the same, without "tiring" the reader by making him
read two "plurals" in a row.

The only valid argument I could think of, for placing the {-pu'} on
the {latlhpu' law'}, is if we wanted to specify that we are talking
about beings capable of speech. But I don't think that this was the
case here.

Anyway, I'm not saying that the {latlhpu' law'} is wrong. I'm saying
though that in my opinion, it has a sound of redundancy, let alone
that it dangerously replicates the english/greek sound of "many
others". It just feels too terran.


On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:58 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 July 2017 at 22:47, Jeremy Silver <jp.silver at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hov leng: logh jaQ Hut wanI' bop ghItlhpu' *Felix*.
> Note that {jaQ} doesn't mean "deep" in the sense of "deep space".
> The official translation of "Deep Space Nine" is {logh Hop Hut
> tengchaH} (from SkyBox card 99).
> --
> De'vID
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list