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

[SuStel]

On 7/2/2020 8:40 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> During battle, an officer sees on the screen something which is surely
> an armed ship closing in at warp 3 and something else which seems to
> be a ship which is more heavily armed closing in at warp 7.
>
> Is there a reason why we couldn't say the following ?
>
> DujHey Qob law' Dujna' Qob puS
> the apparent ship is more dangerous than the definite ship
>
> In the past, we've discussed the noun(s) of a law'/puS construction
> being {-meH}ed nouns, {-bogh}ed nouns, even noun-noun constructions,
> but I don't remember having ever discussed whether the noun(s) of a
> law'/puS construction can take suffixes.

Suffixes on nouns in comparative and superlative sentences? Why not? 
Noun-noun constructions, too! Relative clauses! Adjectivally acting 
verbs! If it's a noun phrase, it's fair game.

*'IwwIj jeD law' 'IwlIj jeD puS.
targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS.
DujvamDaq tlhIngan nuH tu'lu'bogh pov law' Hoch pov puS.
DujvamDaq 'op SuvwI' tu'lu'bogh po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law' po' puS.
tlhIngan qorDu' pong potlh law' Hoch potlh puS.
HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS.
*and so on.

I don't think *-Hey* and *-na'* have ever canonically been the sole 
difference between the two nouns being compared, but there's nothing 
ungrammatical about it.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200702/b737a1a2/attachment-0016.htm>