Using {vItlh} is a good choice, but isn't that only to be used with regards to things such as speed, destruction etc ? What I'm trying to say is, if I want to say "january has more days than february", can I use the {vItlh} ? Can I say.. {jar wa' jajmey vItlh law' jar cha' jajmey vItlh puS} ? This was the reason which made me start this thread in the first place. The need to express the concept of "more" in cases as the above. mayqel q On Oct 11, 2017 18:21, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
For those interested:
*tera' jaj wa'maH loS, jar wa'maH, DIS wa' Hut loS Soch, puvDI' BELL X-wa', *
* DoDaj vItlh law' wab Do vItlh puS.*
[untranslated] (NASM: “Bell X-1 Glamorous Glennis”)
--Voragh
*From:* nIqolay Q On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
If you like to avoid the strange {*law' law'*}, you might want to consider the recently disscovered verb {vItlh}. It was used in a phrase in DSC:
{*Heghmey DISIQpu'. 'a DIvI' Hegh vItlh law' Heghmaj vItlh puS.*} "We have suffered losses but the Federation has suffered far more."
What's interesting to me is that one of the first canon sentences for { *vItlh*} (from the Smithsonian Air and Space tour app) was a law'-puS construction: {*DoDaj **vItlh** law' wab Do **vItlh** puS*.} I wonder if it was coined specifically to avoid using {*law'*} twice in a row. (Even if that's true, I don't see why {*law' law'*} would itself be ungrammatical; maybe it just didn't fit Okrand's aesthetic sensibilities at the time.)
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org