law' puS construction with nouns bearing suffixes
During battle, an officer sees on the screen something which is surely an armed ship closing in at warp 3 and something else which seems to be a ship which is more heavily armed closing in at warp 7. Is there a reason why we couldn't say the following ? DujHey Qob law' Dujna' Qob puS the apparent ship is more dangerous than the definite ship In the past, we've discussed the noun(s) of a law'/puS construction being {-meH}ed nouns, {-bogh}ed nouns, even noun-noun constructions, but I don't remember having ever discussed whether the noun(s) of a law'/puS construction can take suffixes. ~ Qa'yIn
On 7/2/2020 8:40 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
During battle, an officer sees on the screen something which is surely an armed ship closing in at warp 3 and something else which seems to be a ship which is more heavily armed closing in at warp 7.
Is there a reason why we couldn't say the following ?
DujHey Qob law' Dujna' Qob puS the apparent ship is more dangerous than the definite ship
In the past, we've discussed the noun(s) of a law'/puS construction being {-meH}ed nouns, {-bogh}ed nouns, even noun-noun constructions, but I don't remember having ever discussed whether the noun(s) of a law'/puS construction can take suffixes.
Suffixes on nouns in comparative and superlative sentences? Why not? Noun-noun constructions, too! Relative clauses! Adjectivally acting verbs! If it's a noun phrase, it's fair game. *'IwwIj jeD law' 'IwlIj jeD puS. targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS. DujvamDaq tlhIngan nuH tu'lu'bogh pov law' Hoch pov puS. DujvamDaq 'op SuvwI' tu'lu'bogh po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law' po' puS. tlhIngan qorDu' pong potlh law' Hoch potlh puS. HIq ngeb qaq law' bIQ qaq puS. *and so on. I don't think *-Hey* and *-na'* have ever canonically been the sole difference between the two nouns being compared, but there's nothing ungrammatical about it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jul 2, 2020, at 8:41 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
During battle, an officer sees on the screen something which is surely an armed ship closing in at warp 3 and something else which seems to be a ship which is more heavily armed closing in at warp 7.
Is there a reason why we couldn't say the following ?
DujHey Qob law' Dujna' Qob puS the apparent ship is more dangerous than the definite ship
I can’t think of a reason why that would be controversial. Canon provides plenty of examples of noun suffixes on nouns, including nouns in comparative constructions. [end of grammatical advice; start of editorial comment] In this situation, however, I would use a different verb: {paj} “be urgent”. Until its status as a heavily-armed ship is confirmed, its threat level is unknown. It just requires more immediate attention. — ghunchu'wI'
*resign *'oS *paj*. *pav* DaghItlh 'e' DaHech 'e' vIHar. Le jeu. 2 juill. 2020, à 18 h 02, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> a écrit :
On Jul 2, 2020, at 8:41 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
During battle, an officer sees on the screen something which is surely an armed ship closing in at warp 3 and something else which seems to be a ship which is more heavily armed closing in at warp 7.
Is there a reason why we couldn't say the following ?
DujHey Qob law' Dujna' Qob puS the apparent ship is more dangerous than the definite ship
I can’t think of a reason why that would be controversial. Canon provides plenty of examples of noun suffixes on nouns, including nouns in comparative constructions.
[end of grammatical advice; start of editorial comment]
In this situation, however, I would use a different verb: {paj} “be urgent”. Until its status as a heavily-armed ship is confirmed, its threat level is unknown. It just requires more immediate attention.
— ghunchu'wI' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
SuStel:
'IwwIj jeD law' 'IwlIj jeD puS. targhlIj yab tIn law' no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS.
I'd totally forgotten of these Ca'Non examples, which in fact answer the question which had come to my mind as soon as I had sent the first message. I wondered whether we could say {DujHey Qob law' Dujna''e' Qob puS} for "the apparent ship is more dangerous than the *definite* ship". But since there's Ca'Non of nouns bearing a suffix in law'/puS constructions, then why wouldn't we be able to place more than one suffixes, even in the case when one of the suffixes is the emphatic {-'e'}. ghunchu'wI':
In this situation, however, I would use a different verb: {paj} “be urgent”. Until its status as a heavily-armed ship is confirmed, its threat level is unknown. It just requires more immediate attention.
Interesting suggestion. But if we wrote {DujHey paj law' Dujna' paj puS}, wouldn't that somehow diminish the "dangerousness" of the definite ship ? I always understood the english meaning of the word "urgent" as something requiring immediate attention but not necessarily because there is some kind of danger. ~ Qa'yIn
participants (4)
-
Alan Anderson -
Jackson Bradley -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel