On 14 July 2016 at 15:11, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 7/14/2016 4:27 AM, De'vID wrote:
> The proverb {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS} suggests the
> formula may be somewhat more flexible when it comes to what a "noun
> phrase" is, though. A and B can't be verbs or sentences, but it seems
> that {V1-taHvIS N1 Q law' V2-taHvIS N2 Q puS} is an acceptable form.
> The commentary in TKW only says that {-taH} is missing in the proverb.
>
> Given the aberrant grammar, the warning that "in proverbs, however,
> grammatical shortcuts are not uncommon,"

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}.

Yes, but put all those things I mentioned together and you have a highly suspect sentence.

> and the explanation in TKD that
> "Klingon verbs ending in Type 9 suffixes (other than -'a' interrogative and
> -wI' one who does, one which does) always occur in sentences with another
> verb,"

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}.

But you said this suggested that QamvIS Hegh and torvIS yIn satisfied the noun phrase parts of the comparative, as if such phrases could stand alone as noun phrases. Besides this crazy proverb, there is no evidence that -vIS can do this.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name