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