<br><span>
On 14 July 2016 at 15:11, SuStel <</span><a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target="_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a><span>> wrote:</span><br><span>
> On 7/14/2016 4:27 AM, De'vID wrote:</span><br><span>
> The proverb {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS} suggests the</span><br><span>
> formula may be somewhat more flexible when it comes to what a "noun</span><br><span>
> phrase" is, though. A and B can't be verbs or sentences, but it seems</span><br><span>
> that {V1-taHvIS N1 Q law' V2-taHvIS N2 Q puS} is an acceptable form.</span><br><span>
> The commentary in TKW only says that {-taH} is missing in the proverb.</span><br><span>
></span><br><span>
> Given the aberrant grammar, the warning that "in proverbs, however,</span><br><span>
> grammatical shortcuts are not uncommon,"</span><br><span>
</span><br><span>
Just before that, it says "The grammatical construction is a bit aberrant". The way it's written, it suggests that the only problem is the missing {-taH}.</span><br><span>
</span><br><span>
I agree that we shouldn't generalise from one example, but I think Okrand was leaving himself wriggle room here to be a bit more flexible with the law'/puS construction.</span><br><span>
</span><br><span>
> and the explanation in TKD that</span><br><span>
> "Klingon verbs ending in Type 9 suffixes (other than -'a' interrogative and</span><br><span>
> -wI' one who does, one which does) always occur in sentences with another</span><br><span>
> verb,"</span><br><span>
</span><br><span>
And here, that verb is {qaq}. Embedded within this comparative are the two implied sentences {Qam[taH]vIS qaq Hegh} and {tor[taH]vIS qaq yIn}.</span><br><span>
</span><br><span>
> I consider this proverb too unreliable to form any conclusions about</span><br><span>
> new grammar.</span><br><span>
</span><br><span>
On that I agree.</span><br><span>
</span><br><span>
--</span><br><span>
De'vID</span><br><span>
</span>