<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/23/2016 6:25 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+fF-_yg9E7sTYAW7DOFUdwPQFNxCGwKrBjh1-7-2-G0Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">jIH:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">SorDaq vIghro' law' law', chalDaq bo'Degh law' puS
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">SuStel
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">No. You've left out the {vIleghbogh}.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">There is something here I don't understand.
If we say {vIghro' law' law', bo'Degh law' puS}, then this means "the
cats are more numerous than the birds". Why can't we just place a noun
with a {-Daq} in front of the {vIghro'} and {bo'Degh}, with the
sentence acquiring the meaning "at that place the cats are more, than
the birds that are at that (the other place)" ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Because the comparative structure does not include nouns with <b>-Daq</b>.</p>
<p>The structure is "A Q <b>law'</b> B Q <b>puS</b>," where A and
B are noun phrases. Except for the specific changes given to us by
Okrand, this structure is invariable. It is not "X<b>Daq</b> A Q <b>law'</b>
Y<b>Daq</b> B Q <b>puS</b>."<br>
</p>
<p>Now, noun phrases can include nouns with <b>-Daq.</b> For
instance, <b>SorDaq vIghro' vIleghbogh</b><i> cat which I see in
a tree.</i> But <b>*SorDaq vIghro'</b> is not a noun phrase. It
does not mean <i>cat in a tree</i> because the rules of noun-noun
constructions do not allow us to put a type 5 noun suffix on any
but the final noun.</p>
<p>So if you want the individual parts of a comparative sentence to
refer to different places, you're going to have to do so with noun
phrases. These can be very sophisticated:</p>
<p><b>SorDaq bIHtaHbogh vIghro''e' law' law' chalDaq bIHtaHbogh
bo'Degh'e' law' puS<br>
</b><i>there are more cats in the tree than birds in the sky</i></p>
<p>Alternatively, depending on your emphasis, you can abandon the
comparative construct altogether:</p>
<p><b>SorDaq law' vIghro'; chalDaq puS bo'Degh<br>
</b><i>there are many cats in the tree; there are few birds in the
sky</i><b><br>
</b></p>
<p>There is<b> </b>one exception to the invariability of the
comparative construction that I can think of:</p>
<p><b>QamvIS Hegh QaQ law' torvIS yIn QaQ puS<br>
</b><i>Better to die on our feet than live on our knees.</i> (STVI
and TKW)</p>
<p>This sentence is a disaster on many levels, and Okrand even
points out in TKW that it is ungrammatical, though he only
discusses the <b>-vIS</b> lacking a <b>-taH.</b> But by all the
rules we know, <b>*QamtaHvIS Hegh</b> and <b>*tortaHvIS yIn </b>are
not real relative clauses. Can you insert <b>-vIS</b> clauses
into the comparative formula like that? We don't know. Nothing
backs this sentence up.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>