[tlhIngan Hol] law' puS construction with verbs carrying suffixes

Steven Boozer sboozer at uchicago.edu
Tue Dec 5 07:05:51 PST 2017


We’ve seen one example of this in the article about variants of the {law’ / puS} formula nIqolay Q referred to:

  QuchlIj vIl law'be' QuchwIj vIl puSbe'
   your forehead isn't ridgier than my forehead. (HQ 13.1:10)

Note that {-be’} appears on both {law’} and {puS}.

--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons


From: nIqolay Q

We've never seen it. A lot of stative verbs have {-Ha'}, so I'd probably be more inclined to accept one of those in the Q-spot. I'm not sure how I feel about {-be'}, but then we don't know much about what verb suffixes can be used in the law'/puS construction. For a meaning like your sentence, you can negate the law'/puS verbs themselves, see: http://klingonska.org/canon/2004-03-holqed-13-1.txt

{tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghvam tIq law'be' DIvI' Hol 'elaDya' Hol joq mu'tlhegh tIq puSbe'}

which would mean "This Klingon sentence isn't longer than the Greek and/or English sentence," in other words, that it is shorter or equal in length.

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 8:31 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun at gmail.com>> wrote:
At another thread, I wrote the sentence:

{tlhIngan mu'tlheghvam tIqbe' law' DIvI' Hol 'elaDya' Hol qoj mu'tlhegh tIqbe' puS}

With the intented meaning "this klingon sentence isn't longer than the greek and/or english sentence".

I would like to ask whether the {tIqbe'} is an acceptable verb to be placed in the slot of the law' puS construction.

Can we use there a verb carrying suffixes ?

~ nI'ghma

_______________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171205/8fff8aeb/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list