SuStel:
because the rules of noun-noun constructions do not allow us to put a type 5 noun suffix on any but the final noun.
this is beautiful ! I would never have thought that the {SorDaq vIghro' law' law', chalDaq bo'Degh law' puS}, violates this rule. Somehow, I had the impression that at the {... law' ... puS} construction, the rules which govern the noun-noun relationship do not apply. Anyway, now I understand. thanks ! qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 23 Nov 2016 4:13 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/23/2016 6:25 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
jIH:
SorDaq vIghro' law' law', chalDaq bo'Degh law' puS
SuStel
No. You've left out the {vIleghbogh}.
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)" ?
Because the comparative structure does not include nouns with *-Daq*.
The structure is "A Q *law'* B Q *puS*," 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*Daq* A Q *law'* Y*Daq* B Q *puS*."
Now, noun phrases can include nouns with *-Daq.* For instance, *SorDaq vIghro' vIleghbogh** cat which I see in a tree.* But **SorDaq vIghro'* is not a noun phrase. It does not mean *cat in a tree* because the rules of noun-noun constructions do not allow us to put a type 5 noun suffix on any but the final noun.
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:
*SorDaq bIHtaHbogh vIghro''e' law' law' chalDaq bIHtaHbogh bo'Degh'e' law' puS **there are more cats in the tree than birds in the sky*
Alternatively, depending on your emphasis, you can abandon the comparative construct altogether:
*SorDaq law' vIghro'; chalDaq puS bo'Degh **there are many cats in the tree; there are few birds in the sky*
There is one exception to the invariability of the comparative construction that I can think of:
*QamvIS Hegh QaQ law' torvIS yIn QaQ puS **Better to die on our feet than live on our knees.* (STVI and TKW)
This sentence is a disaster on many levels, and Okrand even points out in TKW that it is ungrammatical, though he only discusses the *-vIS* lacking a *-taH.* But by all the rules we know, **QamtaHvIS Hegh* and **tortaHvIS yIn *are not real relative clauses. Can you insert *-vIS* clauses into the comparative formula like that? We don't know. Nothing backs this sentence up.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org