jIH:
Initially the law'/law' construction confused me, but finally I remembered that instead of the classic law'/puS, there are alternate versions such as the law'/law'. So, in this case the meaning obviously is "klingons are as varied as the humans". The choice of the double {law'} instead of a double {puS} obviously is made to express that both klingons and humans are "varied to a great degree". Instead of "varied to a small degree", which would be the case if we had a double {puS}. niqolay Q: A double {puS} construction doesn't mean "to a small degree", it means the comparison has negative connotations. {tlhInganpu' Sar puS Humanpu' Sar puS} would mean "Klingons are as varied as humans (and that's a bad thing)." Using double {law'} is a more value-neutral comparison.
maj. I didn't remember that. jIH:
Isn't here the {law'} on the {latlhpu'} somewhat redundant ? Doesn't the {-pu'} inherently mean "many" ? So, why say {latlhpu' law'} instead of just {latlhpu'} ? niqolay Q: {-pu'} means plural, not many. Two or three is plural, but not many.
I understand the grammar of {-pu'}, however I continue to believe that here the use of {law'} was redundant. Let me explain why. Suppose I write {vIghro'mey nIHpu' Humanpu'} for "humans stole the cats". True, the "humans" can be only two or three or they can be thousands. However, when someone reads the sentence his mind will form the abstract notion of "plural", without it actually focusing on a specific amount. So, here, if we only had {latlhpu'} instead of {latlhpu' law'}, the result for the reader would be the same. If we wanted to specifically express the "many others", i think it would be better to just write {latlh law'}. In this construction the meaning remains the same, without "tiring" the reader by making him read two "plurals" in a row. The only valid argument I could think of, for placing the {-pu'} on the {latlhpu' law'}, is if we wanted to specify that we are talking about beings capable of speech. But I don't think that this was the case here. Anyway, I'm not saying that the {latlhpu' law'} is wrong. I'm saying though that in my opinion, it has a sound of redundancy, let alone that it dangerously replicates the english/greek sound of "many others". It just feels too terran. qunnoq On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:58 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 July 2017 at 22:47, Jeremy Silver <jp.silver@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Hov leng: logh jaQ Hut wanI' bop ghItlhpu' *Felix*.
Note that {jaQ} doesn't mean "deep" in the sense of "deep space".
The official translation of "Deep Space Nine" is {logh Hop Hut tengchaH} (from SkyBox card 99).
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org