On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 20:14, SuStel <sustel@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.

It cannot attach to {qul}, but it is valid to write a sentence such as {latlh qabDaq tuj qul}. One might say that, effectively, the {latlh qabDaq} is being applied to {qul}.

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.

That's one possibility. It would mean: "always, on someone else's face, fire is hotter than anything (i.e., on that someone else's face)". I don't think that's what the proverb is saying (but maybe it is, and I'm misinterpreting it).

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.

I would think of it as being applied to "A's Q is many", so something like "on someone else's face, fire's hot is many; everything (else)'s hot is few".

We also have {DujvamDaq tlhIngan nuH tu'lu'bogh pov law' Hoch pov puS} which follows a similar structure. "on this ship, Klingon weapons which are found's excellent is many; everything (else)'s excellent is few".

Getting back to the original sentence that started the discussion, we might read it like this:

{QamtaHvIS Hegh qaq law'; tortaHvIS yIn qaq puS}

While standing, death's preferable is many; while kneeling, life's preferable is few.

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.

I know what I think it means that the fire is hotter on someone else's face, but I apparently have a very different understanding of what the proverb means than charghwI' does.

De'vID