[tlhIngan Hol] law' puS with the -taHvIS and type-9 clauses preceding each element

Thu Feb 11 14:02:04 PST 2021

In the interest of being less Wagnarian, I just deleted a very long analysis and I’ll resist the temptation to have my humor misinterpreted.

TKD tells us that comparatives and superlatives have exactly one grammatical form, unique in Klingon grammar. There is no method to make a comparison function as a dependent clause. It’s a sentence. That’s what frustrates English speakers who learn Klingon. We’re used to having comparisons and superlatives be a part of a larger, more complex grammatical structure, but not in Klingon. It’s a sentence.

After laying out the skeleton of the structure of comparatives and superlatives in TKD, we’ve gotten canon examples that allow us to replace {law’} and {puS} with other pairs of contrasting verbs of quality for poetic or stylistic reasons, though it doesn’t change the meaning. Any of these optional pairs of qualitative verbs could be replaced by {law’} and {puS} with no change in meaning of the sentence.

The other thing that canon has informed us is that you can prepend a comparative sentence with perhaps adverbials or time stamps (since {reH} could be interpreted as an adverbial acting as a kind of time reference) or type-5-suffixed nouns to give you context for the comparison. When I say you are most wonderful, I’m not saying that you, a warrior in the galaxy, are more wonderful than everything. I’m saying that if we restrict this statement to the topic of warriors in the galaxy, you are the most wonderful.

Similarly, at all times, on another person’s face, the fire is hottest. I’m not saying that the fire on another person’s face is hotter than the center of the Sun, which is a subset of {Hoch}. 

I’m saying that always, on that other guy’s face, the fire is hottest.

One fire.

When?

Always.

Where?

On the other guy’s face.

The idea that we’d have a context set up for the first half of a comparative that doesn’t apply to the second half is perhaps overthinking the rather restricted grammar of the comparative. It’s rare that I accuse anyone else of overthinking something, being a compulsive over-thinker, myself, but there you have it.

There simply isn’t anything in canon to suggest scope limits for context provided at the beginning of a comparative unless there is an explicit, contrasting context provided for the second half.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Feb 11, 2021, at 2:14 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> I see a lot of assumptions going on about what this Klingon sentence — not the English translation — means.
> 
> Let's check that by first noting that the comparative/superlative literally means A's Q is many; B's Q is few. It doesn't follow basic sentence syntax, but that's okay: we're told that comparatives and superlatives have their own construction.
> 
> reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS
> 
> So what is the scope of reH? What is the scope of latlh qabDaq?
> 
> We know that latlh qabDaq cannot be attached to qul because a type 5 noun suffix cannot be anywhere in a noun-noun construction but at the end.
> 
> We can suppose both reH and latlh qabDaq belong to the space before sentences: [reH] [latlh qabDaq] [qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS]. This would mean Fire's hot is many, and all else's hot is few; this is true always and on another's face.
> 
> We might also suppose that the reH remains before the main sentence but that latlh qabDaq modifies something else, and qul just gets in the way because of the odd syntax. It might be attached to tuj: fire's hot-on-another's-face is many, and all else's hot is few; this is always true. Or it might be attached to law': fire's hot is many on-another's-face, and all else's hot is few; this is always true.
> 
> Given the odd syntax of the comparative/superlative, the unexplained nature of observed modifiers outside of that construction, the fairly non-literal nature of the proverb (What the heck does it MEAN that the fire is hotter on someone else's face? What fire? Hotter than what? Hotter than another fire?), and the very fact that Klingon proverbs are prone to containing         grammatical exceptions, I don't see how we can draw any solid conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/11/2021 1:48 PM, Will Martin wrote:
>> I completely disagree about the scope of {latlh qabDaq} in the sentence {latlh qabDaq qul tuj law’ Hoch tuj puS.}
>> 
>> Look at the superlative part of this sentence. What does it mean? It means, “The fire is hottest.” This is similar to the superlative in {SoH Dun law’ Hoch Dun puS}. “You are the most wonderful.”
>> 
>> Where is the fire hottest? It’s hottest on someone else’s face.
>> 
>> We aren’t saying “[The fire at someone else’s face] is hottest.” We are saying “[The fire is hottest] at someone else’s face.”
>> 
>> We aren’t talking about a bunch of different fires, and the hottest one is at someone else’s face. We are talking about ONE fire, and the place where it is hottest is at someone else’s face.
>> 
>> charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
>> 
>> rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
>> 
>>> On Feb 11, 2021, at 10:17 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com <mailto:de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 18:23, Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com <mailto:willmartin2 at mac.com>> wrote:
>>> In the canon example {qIbDaq SuvwI’’e’ SoH Dun law’ Hoch Dun puS}: 
>>> 
>>> The suffix {-‘e’} lets you know that everything being said happens with the filter that you are talking about warriors in the galaxy. That is what extends the comparison to both sides of the comparison.
>>> 
>>> As for warriors in the galaxy, you are the most wonderful. Maybe there are more wonderful warriors somewhere else, but the bounds of this comparison falls within the topic of the whole sentence, which is warriors in the galaxy.
>>> 
>>> This is not grammatically similar to {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law’ Hoch tuj puS}, since there is no {-‘e’} but I’d argue that it would be normal to interpret the locative to apply to the entire comparison.
>>> 
>>> Both of those sentences involve the suffix {-Daq}. But also, both {-'e'} and {-Daq} are type-5 noun suffixes. Drop the {SuvwI''e'} from the first sentence and the {reH} from the second and the sentences become grammatically parallel:
>>> 
>>> {qIbDaq SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS}
>>> {latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS}
>>>  
>>> But in the first sentence, {qIbDaq} applies to the entire comparison. In the second, it appears to apply only to the first half. 
>>> 
>>> My reasoning is that the normal comparative is dirt simple:
>>> 
>>> X [adjectival] law’, Y [adjectival] puS. 
>>> 
>>> The superlative is similar, replacing X or Y with {Hoch}.
>>> 
>>> There are extensions of this grammatical construction, but each one of them is a little bit special. The best exceptions are the least special, requiring the least mental stretching to interpret.
>>> 
>>> The simplest is to preface the entire comparison, as in the two examples considered up to this point:
>>> 
>>> [Context for the comparison that would appear at the beginning of a normal sentence] [Comparison].
>>> 
>>> Slightly more special would be:
>>> 
>>> [Context for the first side of the comparison] [First side of the comparison] [Context for the second side of the comparison] [Second side of the comparison].
>>> 
>>> It’s okay to have a sentence that is that second degree of special, but it’s not really so common that it is sufficiently anticipated that if there is no second context given, one would assume that the context applied only to the first half.
>>> 
>>> The whole point of this discussion is whether or not this is okay. I think it is, but earlier, others have stated that they think it isn't. If you think it's okay, I'm not the one you need to justify this to.
>>>  
>>> Consider:
>>> 
>>> {juHlIjDaq SoH Sub law’, juHDajDaq SoH Sub puS.}
>>> 
>>> You are bolder at your house than you are at his house.
>>> 
>>> I would tentatively accept this as grammatical, but using grammar which is implied by canon examples but never explained. IIUC, others would not accept it and would consider it aberrant grammar.
>>>  
>>> If I just said:
>>> 
>>> {juHlIjDaq SoH Sub law’ ghaH Sub puS}.
>>> 
>>> At your house, you are bolder than he is.
>>> 
>>> Why would you expect this example to mean “You are bolder in your house than he is [perhaps even outside of your house],”? The context of the comparison is “in your house”.
>>> 
>>> I wouldn't expect it to mean that (without additional context), but I couldn't rule out this meaning (you're bolder in your house than he is in general), either. 
>>>  
>>> There is no reason to anticipate an omitted context for the second half of the comparison. For that, I would have said:
>>> 
>>> {juHlIjDaq SoH Sub law’ Dat ghaH Sub puS.}
>>> 
>>> If you give one scope, that stretches to the whole comparison. If you give a second scope, then the context has significant meaning for the comparison, because it’s really the two contexts that are being compared.
>>> 
>>> Does this make sense to you?
>>> 
>>> Yes, perfectly. But my point is that the sentence {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} suggests the scope of the {-Daq} is not necessarily the entire comparison. 
>>> 
>>> Do you not see that the intended meaning of this sentence seems to contradict your analysis? The comparison here is not between just things on someone else's face, it's between something (a fire) on someone else's face and everything else (including outside of someone else's face).
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> De'vID
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> 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/20210211/1156fa4e/attachment-0016.htm>