[tlhIngan Hol] law' puS construction with nouns bearing suffixes

mayqel qunen'oS mihkoun at gmail.com
Fri Jul 3 05:58:23 PDT 2020


SuStel:
> 'IwwIj jeD law' 'IwlIj jeD puS.
> targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS.

I'd totally forgotten of these Ca'Non examples, which in fact answer
the question which had come to my mind as soon as I had sent the first
message.

I wondered whether we could say {DujHey Qob law' Dujna''e' Qob puS}
for "the apparent ship is more dangerous than the *definite* ship".
But since there's Ca'Non of nouns bearing a suffix in law'/puS
constructions, then why wouldn't we be able to place more than one
suffixes, even in the case when one of the suffixes is the emphatic
{-'e'}.

ghunchu'wI':
> In this situation, however, I would use a different verb: {paj} “be urgent”.
> Until its status as a heavily-armed ship is confirmed, its threat level is unknown.
> It just requires more immediate attention.

Interesting suggestion. But if we wrote {DujHey paj law' Dujna' paj
puS}, wouldn't that somehow diminish the "dangerousness" of the
definite ship ? I always understood the english meaning of the word
"urgent" as something requiring immediate attention but not
necessarily because there is some kind of danger.

~ Qa'yIn


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list