[tlhIngan Hol] law' puS construction with law'

[mayqel qunenoS]

Using {vItlh} is a good choice, but isn't that only to be used with regards
to things such as speed, destruction etc ?

What I'm trying to say is, if I want to say "january has more days than
february", can I use the {vItlh} ? Can I say..

{jar wa' jajmey vItlh law' jar cha' jajmey vItlh puS} ?

This was the reason which made me start this thread in the first place. The
need to express the concept of "more" in cases as the above.

mayqel q

On Oct 11, 2017 18:21, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer at uchicago.edu> wrote:

> For those interested:
>
>
>
> *tera' jaj wa'maH loS, jar wa'maH, DIS wa' Hut loS Soch, puvDI' BELL
> X-wa', *
>
> *   DoDaj vItlh law' wab Do vItlh puS.*
>
> [untranslated]   (NASM: “Bell X-1 Glamorous Glennis”)
>
> --Voragh
>
>
>
> *From:* nIqolay Q
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
> If you like to avoid the strange {*law' law'*}, you might want to
> consider the recently disscovered verb {vItlh}. It was used in a phrase in
> DSC:
>
> {*Heghmey DISIQpu'. 'a DIvI' Hegh vItlh law' Heghmaj vItlh puS.*}
> "We have suffered losses but the Federation has suffered far more."
>
>
>
> What's interesting to me is that one of the first canon sentences for {
> *vItlh*} (from the Smithsonian Air and Space tour app) was a law'-puS
> construction: {*DoDaj **vItlh** law' wab Do **vItlh** puS*.} I wonder if
> it was coined specifically to avoid using {*law'*} twice in a row. (Even
> if that's true, I don't see why {*law' law'*} would itself be
> ungrammatical; maybe it just didn't fit Okrand's aesthetic sensibilities at
> the time.)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171011/9c4e19a0/attachment-0017.htm>