-----Begin Original Message----- From: Lieven Am 11.10.2017 um 15:49 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:

{tlhIngan law' law' romuluSngan law' puS} the klingons are more numerous than the romulans

Definitely yes. I think there's even a canon example for this. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" -----End Original Message----- I think Lieven is thinking of this one: DujvamDaq tlhIngan nuH tu'lu'bogh pov law' Hoch pov puS 'ej DujvamDaq 'op SuvwI' tu'lu'bogh po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law' po' puS It [IKC Pagh] has the best weapons and some of the finest warriors in the Klingon fleet. (S7) Not quite a match, but close. If mayqel is asking whether {law'} -- or {puS} for that matter -- can be the Q element in a {A Q law' B Q puS} ("A is Q-er than B") phrase, then I see no reason why not. You would have to listen very carefully, to be sure, but that might appeal to some speakers. -- Voragh aka the "Klingon Cataloger from Chicago"

On 11 October 2017 at 16:35, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

...

If mayqel is asking whether {law'} -- or {puS} for that matter -- can be the Q element in a {A Q law' B Q puS} ("A is Q-er than B") phrase, then I see no reason why not. You would have to listen very carefully, to be sure, but that might appeal to some speakers.

Using the same word twice in a row might seem strange, but I don't think that that sort of thing is unheard of in natural languages.

I cannot not comment on the fact that that sort of repetition shouldn't happen very very much. -- De'vID

Am 11.10.2017 um 16:28 schrieb Steven Boozer:

I think Lieven is thinking of this one:

No, sorry, was not. And I just checked my own notes, so I might have confused this with something else. HIvqa' veqlargh.

If mayqel is asking whether {law'} -- or {puS} for that matter -- can be the Q element in a {A Q law' B Q puS} ("A is Q-er than B") phrase, then I see no reason why not. You would have to listen very carefully, to be sure, but that might appeal to some speakers.

Indeed, why should it not? 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." -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/DSC102

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<mailto: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.)

On 10/11/2017 11:40 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

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.

*vItlh* is given to us as /be high, great (in quantity, size, intensity)./ If this translation is completely accurate, I'd expect *vItlh* to work the way you have used it. January's days are indeed greater in quantity than February's days. But notice that *vItlh* is a lot more vague here than *law'.* With *vItlh,* maybe you're saying that January's days are more intense than February's, or longer. *vItlh* doesn't specify. But with *law**',* there is only one interpretation: there are /more/ days in January than in February. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 10/11/2017 11:29 AM, Lieven wrote:

Am 11.10.2017 um 17:13 schrieb nIqolay Q:

...

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.

I think it's the difference in the definition: They are talking about speed, especially the amount of speed measured in numbers.

The speed was higher, but they were stil ltalking about ONE speed. Using {law'} "be many" would mean that they are talking about several speeds, in plural.

{DoDaj vItlh law' wab Do vItlh puS.} "The speed is higher than the speed of sound"

{DoDaj law' law' wab Do law' puS.} "His speeds are more than the sound's speeds"

In SkyBox S32, we see *'ul law'* which gets translated /highly-charged./ I'd expect *'ul* and *Do* to be treated similarly in this regard. Obviously, the answer is that Okrand just hadn't thought of *vItlh* yet, but here we're not expected to think of this as /many (different) electricities./ I don't think *Do law'* would automatically mean /many (different) velocities/ just by that logical alone. Now that we have *vItlh,* that's obviously the better choice for things like this. But you can't completely rule out using *law'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 10/11/2017 11:56 AM, Lieven wrote:

Am 11.10.2017 um 17:50 schrieb SuStel:

...

but here we're not expected to think of this as /many (different) electricities./ I don't think *Do law'* would automatically mean /many (different) velocities/ just by that logical alone.

I don't have canon examples at hand, but I'm sure that {law'} is not only "many" but also "much" (bIQ law' - "a lot of water", not "many waters"). So with noncountable things like {'ul law'} I don't read it as "many electricities", but "much electricity".

I looked a bit for *law'* on uncountable nouns, but *'ul* was the only one I found. I don't see how you distinguish between *'ul* being uncountable and *Do* being countable. Surely you can measure electrical charge as well as you can measure velocity, and you can have different measurements of electrical charge as you can have different measurements of velocity. Grammatically, I see absolutely no difference between these two words.

...

Now that we have *vItlh,* that's obviously the better choice for things like this. But you can't completely rule out using *law'.*

I think one can use this to distinguish between "a lot of speed, very fast {Do law'} and "a high amount of speed measured in numbers" {Do vItlh}.

I don't see the difference here, either. Using *vItlh* doesn't relate your sentence to numbers; you're just saying, /that's a lot./ Which is what *law'* is saying with *'ul law'.* I think the difference, which I just suggested in another message, is that *vItlh* is more general than *law'**. law' *is only about quantity, while *vItlh* is about quantity or size or intensity or whatever it is by which you measure a thing. If you measure a big quantity, either *law' *or *vItlh* will do, though *vItlh *assumes the listener knows you're talking about quantity; if you measure a big size, either *tIn *or *vItlh* will do, though *vItlh *assumes the listener knows you're talking about size; if you measure a big strength, either *HoS* or *vItlh* will do, though *vItlh *assumes the listener knows you're talking about strength; and so on. /The energy field is strong. /*HoS HoSchem vItlh HoSchem* (Both say exactly the same thing. But you wouldn't say *law' HoSchem* for that meaning, and you wouldn't interpret *vItlh HoSchem* as /there are many energy fields, /because energy fields are usually measured by their strengths/./) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 10/11/2017 12:16 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:10 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:

I think the difference, which I just suggested in another message, is that *vItlh* is more general than *law'**. law' *is only about quantity, while *vItlh* is about quantity or size or intensity or whatever it is by which you measure a thing. If you measure a big quantity, either *law' *or *vItlh* will do, though *vItlh *assumes the listener knows you're talking about quantity; if you measure a big size, either *tIn *or *vItlh* will do, though *vItlh *assumes the listener knows you're talking about size; if you measure a big strength, either *HoS* or *vItlh* will do, though *vItlh *assumes the listener knows you're talking about strength; and so on.

It seems like *vItlh* has a similar set of meanings as the noun *-'a'* suffix.

*-'a'* and *-Hom* don't just mean great in quantity/intensity/etc.; they usually make the noun into a different thing entirely. *vItlh* doesn't do that; it just describes a noun. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 10/11/2017 12:35 PM, Lieven wrote:

Am 11.10.2017 um 18:10 schrieb SuStel:

...

I don't see the difference here, either. Using *vItlh* doesn't relate your sentence to numbers; you're just saying, /that's a lot./ Which is what *law'* is saying with *'ul law'.*

I think the difference, which I just suggested in another message, is that *vItlh* is more general than *law'**. law' *is only about quantity, while *vItlh* is about quantity or size or intensity or whatever it is by which you measure a thing.

All of this is just guessing, so no offense, but I see it acutally the opposite: {law'} means "many" without thinking of numbers, while {vItlh} is used when one can expect an answer in numbers or measure the thing you talk about.  Like saying "this thing costs more" or "the price for this is higher".

I know this sounds very vague as well, and I may be wrong. It seems to me that Okrand has avoided to say {Do law'} "a lot of speed" because both speed are "a lot" already: Speed of sound really is {Do law'}. So he wanted to say that the measured amount of the speed is high. That's different from saying that one is faster than the other. It's saying that the number of the speed is higher - not just saying it's {law'}.

*Do* does not imply /fast/. /Velocity/ is a neutral term. If *vItlh* is meant to indicate that something is /measured/ to be great or high as opposed to /being/ great or high, our definition for it completely fails to convey this. I think Okrand is just more ready to invent new words than he used to be, and was about to translate something that sounded awkward, so he decided to make up something new. He didn't survey everything he's ever written the way we do, searching for other times he talked about something being a lot. /Check dictionary—nothing good there—don't remember saying anything quite like this—okay, make up something new./

And yes, you can also measure electricity, I know, but perhaps that was not important when talking about "it consumes a lot of electricty".

Here's another possibility. If you can imagine a measurable thing as consisting of bits of stuff, use *law';* if it can't be imagined as bits of stuff, use *vItlh.* Electricity is not exactly literally bits of stuff, but you can imagine that it is and you can imagine a pool of it in the device that uses it. It has an actual physical location. But you can't imagine velocity as stuff; you can't exhaust velocity or move some of it somewhere else; you can't point to the part of an object that contains its velocity. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

{DoDaj vItlh law' wab Do vItlh puS.} "The speed is higher than the speed of sound"

{DoDaj law' law' wab Do law' puS.} "His speeds are more than the sound's speeds"

I could have sworn that there was some usage of {law'} used with something that couldn't be counted, in the sense of "a lot of", but I'm blanking on it at the moment. On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:40 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

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} ?

The gloss of {vItlh} is "be high, great (in quantity, size, intensity)". It seems to be used for things that can be measured but not really counted, like {Do}, though we only have a few examples of it. It feels weird to use with {jajmey}. It feels like it would be right to use with something like {jajmey mI'} "the number of days", though that's kind of wordy. In any case, I don't see why you couldn't use {law'} in the law'-puS construction. Stylistically you might not want to use {law'} twice in a row, but that's the only argument against it that I can think of.