SuStel:

It's a Maltz-said-so-special-phrase-so- shut-up-and-don't-generalize case. It is described in The Klingon Way as aberrant grammar. tkw quoted by the Ca'Non master: The grammatical construction is a bit aberrant; one would expect {QamtaHvIS} and {tortaHvIS}

Thank you SuStel and voragh for taking the time to explain this. While I was writing the initial post, I remembered that we had discussed in the past that the {QamvIS Hegh..} was a special case, but my confusion came from the fact, that I was under the impression, that its' being "a special case" was in reference only to the the {QamvIS} and the {torvIS} lacking a {-taH}. Anyway, good to know that its' being a special case refers to the placement of the second {-vIS} clause as well. Satlho'. ~ Dana'an DaH DIHIvnIS DIHIvlaHtaHvIS

nIqolay Q:

But that grammar has never been elaborated on and we have no other examples, so it's probably best not to mess too much with it.

Yes, indeed. But it's truly a pity though.. With the law'/puS construction being rigid the way it is, I wish we were given the liberty to play with it, even if that meant having the freedom to place a simple type-9 clause before the {puS} part. ~ Dana'an I love you maltz

On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 18:59, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

< reH latlh qabDaq > qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS

The fire is always hotter on someone else's face. (PK)

This sentence seems to be comparing "the hotness of fire on someone else's face" with "the hotness of everything (including one's own face)", and not "the hotness of fire on someone else's face" with "the hotness of everything on someone else's face". That is, the English translation is not "The fire is always hotter than anything else on someone else's face", but is implied to be "The hottest fire is always on someone else's face". The {latlh qabDaq} seems to apply only to the first half of the comparison (the {qul} and the first {tuj}).

So to re-cast your first example, I would see nothing wrong with:

Suvlu'taHvIS batlh potlh law' yIn potlh puS [or] Suvlu'taHvIS batlh potlh law' tlhuH potlh puS

But neither of these express "breath(ing) while living". -- De'vID

On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 11:38, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

Perhaps a better translation for you would be, “The hottest fire is on someone else’s face.” Don’t try to logically figure out what {Hoch} is doing. It’s just the idiom Klingon uses to express a superlative.

Yes, but the issue is: what is the scope of the superlative? In {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS}, if {latlh qabDaq} applies to the entire comparison that follows (i.e., the superlative is within its scope), then what the sentence says is "On someone else's face, the fire is the hottest (hotter than anyone else on their face)." The intended meaning seems to be, "The fire on someone else's face is the hottest (than everything, including the fire on your face or my face)". That is, the {latlh qabDaq} seems to be modifying not the entire comparison, but only the first part of it. Compare this to {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS}, where the {qIbDaq SuvwI''e'} applies to the entire comparison. It's a similar thing to {Qam[taH]vIS Hegh qaq law' tor[taH]vIS yIn qaq puS}. The {Qam[taH]vIS} applies to the first half, and the {tor[taH]vIS} applies to the second half. There seems to be some unexplained grammar that allows the verb of quality in each half of the comparison to be modified independently. -- De'vID

On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 18:23, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

In the canon example {qIbDaq SuvwI’’e’ SoH Dun law’ Hoch Dun puS}:

The suffix {-‘e’} lets you know that everything being said happens with the filter that you are talking about warriors in the galaxy. That is what extends the comparison to both sides of the comparison.

As for warriors in the galaxy, you are the most wonderful. Maybe there are more wonderful warriors somewhere else, but the bounds of this comparison falls within the topic of the whole sentence, which is warriors in the galaxy.

This is not grammatically similar to {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law’ Hoch tuj puS}, since there is no {-‘e’} but I’d argue that it would be normal to interpret the locative to apply to the entire comparison.

Both of those sentences involve the suffix {-Daq}. But also, both {-'e'} and {-Daq} are type-5 noun suffixes. Drop the {SuvwI''e'} from the first sentence and the {reH} from the second and the sentences become grammatically parallel: {qIbDaq SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} {latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} But in the first sentence, {qIbDaq} applies to the entire comparison. In the second, it appears to apply only to the first half. My reasoning is that the normal comparative is dirt simple:

X [adjectival] law’, Y [adjectival] puS.

The superlative is similar, replacing X or Y with {Hoch}.

There are extensions of this grammatical construction, but each one of them is a little bit special. The best exceptions are the least special, requiring the least mental stretching to interpret.

The simplest is to preface the entire comparison, as in the two examples considered up to this point:

[Context for the comparison that would appear at the beginning of a normal sentence] [Comparison].

Slightly more special would be:

[Context for the first side of the comparison] [First side of the comparison] [Context for the second side of the comparison] [Second side of the comparison].

It’s okay to have a sentence that is that second degree of special, but it’s not really so common that it is sufficiently anticipated that if there is no second context given, one would assume that the context applied only to the first half.

The whole point of this discussion is whether or not this is okay. I think it is, but earlier, others have stated that they think it isn't. If you think it's okay, I'm not the one you need to justify this to.

Consider:

{juHlIjDaq SoH Sub law’, juHDajDaq SoH Sub puS.}

You are bolder at your house than you are at his house.

I would tentatively accept this as grammatical, but using grammar which is implied by canon examples but never explained. IIUC, others would not accept it and would consider it aberrant grammar.

If I just said:

{juHlIjDaq SoH Sub law’ ghaH Sub puS}.

At your house, you are bolder than he is.

Why would you expect this example to mean “You are bolder in your house than he is [perhaps even outside of your house],”? The context of the comparison is “in your house”.

I wouldn't expect it to mean that (without additional context), but I couldn't rule out this meaning (you're bolder in your house than he is in general), either.

There is no reason to anticipate an omitted context for the second half of the comparison. For that, I would have said:

{juHlIjDaq SoH Sub law’ Dat ghaH Sub puS.}

If you give one scope, that stretches to the whole comparison. If you give a second scope, then the context has significant meaning for the comparison, because it’s really the two contexts that are being compared.

Does this make sense to you?

Yes, perfectly. But my point is that the sentence {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} suggests the scope of the {-Daq} is not necessarily the entire comparison. Do you not see that the intended meaning of this sentence seems to contradict your analysis? The comparison here is not between just things on someone else's face, it's between something (a fire) on someone else's face and everything else (including outside of someone else's face). -- De'vID

I see a lot of assumptions going on about what this Klingon sentence — not the English translation — means. Let's check that by first noting that the comparative/superlative /literally/ means /A's Q is many; B's Q is few./ It doesn't follow basic sentence syntax, but that's okay: we're told that comparatives and superlatives have their own construction. *reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS* So what is the scope of *reH?* What is the scope of *latlh qabDaq?* We know that *latlh qabDaq* cannot be attached to *qul* because a type 5 noun suffix cannot be anywhere in a noun-noun construction but at the end. We can suppose both *reH* and *latlh qabDaq* belong to the space before sentences: *[reH] [latlh qabDaq] [qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS].* This would mean /Fire's hot is many, and all else's hot is few; this is true always and on another's face./ We might also suppose that the *reH* remains before the main sentence but that *latlh qabDaq* modifies something else, and *qul* just gets in the way because of the odd syntax. It might be attached to *tuj:* /fire's hot-on-another's-face is many, and all else's hot is few; this is always true./ Or it might be attached to *law':* /fire's hot is many ///on-another's-face, /and all else's hot is few; this is always true. / Given the odd syntax of the comparative/superlative, the unexplained nature of observed modifiers outside of that construction, the fairly non-literal nature of the proverb (What the heck does it MEAN that the fire is hotter on someone else's face? What fire? Hotter than what? Hotter than another fire?), and the very fact that Klingon proverbs are prone to containing grammatical exceptions, I don't see how we can draw any solid conclusions. On 2/11/2021 1:48 PM, Will Martin wrote:

I completely disagree about the scope of {latlh qabDaq} in the sentence {latlh qabDaq qul tuj law’ Hoch tuj puS.}

Look at the superlative part of this sentence. What does it mean? It means, “The fire is hottest.” This is similar to the superlative in {SoH Dun law’ Hoch Dun puS}. “You are the most wonderful.”

Where is the fire hottest? It’s hottest on someone else’s face.

We aren’t saying “[The fire at someone else’s face] is hottest.” We are saying “[The fire is hottest] at someone else’s face.”

We aren’t talking about a bunch of different fires, and the hottest one is at someone else’s face. We are talking about ONE fire, and the place where it is hottest is at someone else’s face.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

...

On Feb 11, 2021, at 10:17 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com <mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 18:23, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>> wrote:

In the canon example {qIbDaq SuvwI’’e’ SoH Dun law’ Hoch Dun puS}:

The suffix {-‘e’} lets you know that everything being said happens with the filter that you are talking about warriors in the galaxy. That is what extends the comparison to both sides of the comparison.

As for warriors in the galaxy, you are the most wonderful. Maybe there are more wonderful warriors somewhere else, but the bounds of this comparison falls within the topic of the whole sentence, which is warriors in the galaxy.

This is not grammatically similar to {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law’ Hoch tuj puS}, since there is no {-‘e’} but I’d argue that it would be normal to interpret the locative to apply to the entire comparison.

Both of those sentences involve the suffix {-Daq}. But also, both {-'e'} and {-Daq} are type-5 noun suffixes. Drop the {SuvwI''e'} from the first sentence and the {reH} from the second and the sentences become grammatically parallel:

{qIbDaq SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} {latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} But in the first sentence, {qIbDaq} applies to the entire comparison. In the second, it appears to apply only to the first half.

My reasoning is that the normal comparative is dirt simple:

X [adjectival] law’, Y [adjectival] puS.

The superlative is similar, replacing X or Y with {Hoch}.

There are extensions of this grammatical construction, but each one of them is a little bit special. The best exceptions are the least special, requiring the least mental stretching to interpret.

The simplest is to preface the entire comparison, as in the two examples considered up to this point:

[Context for the comparison that would appear at the beginning of a normal sentence] [Comparison].

Slightly more special would be:

[Context for the first side of the comparison] [First side of the comparison] [Context for the second side of the comparison] [Second side of the comparison].

It’s okay to have a sentence that is that second degree of special, but it’s not really so common that it is sufficiently anticipated that if there is no second context given, one would assume that the context applied only to the first half.

The whole point of this discussion is whether or not this is okay. I think it is, but earlier, others have stated that they think it isn't. If you think it's okay, I'm not the one you need to justify this to.

Consider:

{juHlIjDaq SoH Sub law’, juHDajDaq SoH Sub puS.}

You are bolder at your house than you are at his house.

I would tentatively accept this as grammatical, but using grammar which is implied by canon examples but never explained. IIUC, others would not accept it and would consider it aberrant grammar.

If I just said:

{juHlIjDaq SoH Sub law’ ghaH Sub puS}.

At your house, you are bolder than he is.

Why would you expect this example to mean “You are bolder in your house than he is [perhaps even outside of your house],”? The context of the comparison is “in your house”.

I wouldn't expect it to mean that (without additional context), but I couldn't rule out this meaning (you're bolder in your house than he is in general), either.

There is no reason to anticipate an omitted context for the second half of the comparison. For that, I would have said:

{juHlIjDaq SoH Sub law’ Dat ghaH Sub puS.}

If you give one scope, that stretches to the whole comparison. If you give a second scope, then the context has significant meaning for the comparison, because it’s really the two contexts that are being compared.

Does this make sense to you?

Yes, perfectly. But my point is that the sentence {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} suggests the scope of the {-Daq} is not necessarily the entire comparison.

Do you not see that the intended meaning of this sentence seems to contradict your analysis? The comparison here is not between just things on someone else's face, it's between something (a fire) on someone else's face and everything else (including outside of someone else's face).

-- De'vID

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 20:14, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

I see a lot of assumptions going on about what this Klingon sentence — not the English translation — means.

Let's check that by first noting that the comparative/superlative *literally* means *A's Q is many; B's Q is few.* It doesn't follow basic sentence syntax, but that's okay: we're told that comparatives and superlatives have their own construction.

*reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS*

So what is the scope of *reH?* What is the scope of *latlh qabDaq?*

We know that *latlh qabDaq* cannot be attached to *qul* because a type 5 noun suffix cannot be anywhere in a noun-noun construction but at the end.

It cannot attach to {qul}, but it is valid to write a sentence such as {latlh qabDaq tuj qul}. One might say that, effectively, the {latlh qabDaq} is being applied to {qul}.

We can suppose both *reH* and *latlh qabDaq* belong to the space before sentences: *[reH] [latlh qabDaq] [qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS].* This would mean *Fire's hot is many, and all else's hot is few; this is true always and on another's face.*

That's one possibility. It would mean: "always, on someone else's face, fire is hotter than anything (i.e., on that someone else's face)". I don't think that's what the proverb is saying (but maybe it is, and I'm misinterpreting it).

We might also suppose that the *reH* remains before the main sentence but that *latlh qabDaq* modifies something else, and *qul* just gets in the way because of the odd syntax. It might be attached to *tuj:* *fire's hot-on-another's-face is many, and all else's hot is few; this is always true.* Or it might be attached to *law':* *fire's hot is many * *on-another's-face, and all else's hot is few; this is always true.*

I would think of it as being applied to "A's Q is many", so something like "on someone else's face, fire's hot is many; everything (else)'s hot is few". We also have {DujvamDaq tlhIngan nuH tu'lu'bogh pov law' Hoch pov puS} which follows a similar structure. "on this ship, Klingon weapons which are found's excellent is many; everything (else)'s excellent is few". Getting back to the original sentence that started the discussion, we might read it like this: {QamtaHvIS Hegh qaq law'; tortaHvIS yIn qaq puS} While standing, death's preferable is many; while kneeling, life's preferable is few.

Given the odd syntax of the comparative/superlative, the unexplained nature of observed modifiers outside of that construction, the fairly non-literal nature of the proverb (What the heck does it MEAN that the fire is hotter on someone else's face? What fire? Hotter than what? Hotter than another fire?), and the very fact that Klingon proverbs are prone to containing grammatical exceptions, I don't see how we can draw any solid conclusions.

I know what I think it means that the fire is hotter on someone else's face, but I apparently have a very different understanding of what the proverb means than charghwI' does. -- De'vID

On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 19:49, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

I completely disagree about the scope of {latlh qabDaq} in the sentence {latlh qabDaq qul tuj law’ Hoch tuj puS.}

Look at the superlative part of this sentence. What does it mean? It means, “The fire is hottest.” This is similar to the superlative in {SoH Dun law’ Hoch Dun puS}. “You are the most wonderful.”

I think you have been misled by the English translation. In English, "the fire is hottest" can have one of two meanings: (1) "the fire is hottest among other things" and (2) "the fire is at its hottest (e.g., than at any time or place)". According to the description of the superlative in TKD, at least, it seems that {qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} can only have the first meaning and not the second. <A Q {law'} B Q {puS}... says "A's Q is many, B's Q is few" or "A has more Q than B" or "A is Q-er than B"... To express the superlative, that something is the most or greatest of all, the noun {Hoch} is used in the B position> The example, {la' jaq law' Hoch jaq puS} "The commander is boldest of all", means that "The commander is more bold than anyone else" and not "The commander is at his boldest". What you claim about the meaning of {qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} is *dis*similar to the superlative in {SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} "You are the most wonderful", "You are more wonderful than anyone else". If it *were* similar, it would mean "the fire is more hot than anything else" (as I believe), and not "the fire is (at) its hottest" (as you seem to think). If you look at all the other canon instance where a comparison is made with {Hoch} in the B position, they are comparing A to everything else (of its class), i.e. A is Q-est among other things, and not claiming that A is at its most Q: DujvamDaq tlhIngan nuH tu'lu'bogh pov law' Hoch pov puS. jonlu'meH wo'maj pop tIn law' Hoch tIn puS. noH ghoblu'DI' yay quv law' Hoch quv puS. SoH rallaw' law' Hoch rallaw' puS. tlhIngan qorDu' pong potlh law' Hoch potlh puS. tlhIngan wo' yuQmey chovlu'chugh Qo'noS potlh law' Hoch potlh puS. It's certainly possible that the "A Q {law'} {Hoch} Q {puS}" *can* mean "A is at its Q-est" (in addition to "A is Q-est than anything else"), but that's not supported by any evidence that I know of. It's also possible that Dr. Okrand, in looking to translate "the fire is (at) its hottest", forgot (or deliberately ignored or is implicitly extending) the explanation of the construction given in TKD. But going strictly by what's known, {qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} does not mean what you think it means. Where is the fire hottest? It’s hottest on someone else’s face.

We aren’t saying “[The fire at someone else’s face] is hottest.” We are saying “[The fire is hottest] at someone else’s face.”

We aren’t talking about a bunch of different fires, and the hottest one is at someone else’s face. We are talking about ONE fire, and the place where it is hottest is at someone else’s face.

In {DujvamDaq... nuH... pov law' Hoch pov puS}, it's not talking about one (set of) weapon(s), and the place where it is best is on this ship. It's talking about this ship's weapons, which is the best (i.e., better compared to any weapon on another Klingon ship). Now, it's possible that {DujvamDaq nuH pov law' Hoch pov puS} could, in some context, be talking about one weapon, and the place where it is best is on this ship. It's also possible that {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} could, in some context, mean that the place where you are the most wonderful warrior is in this galaxy (i.e., you wouldn't be as wonderful a warrior in other galaxies as in this one). Maybe the intended meaning of the sentence is to talk about "ONE fire, and the place where it is hottest is at someone else's face", but if that's what it means, then the "A Q {law'} Hoch Q {puS}" formula is doing something quite different than either how it's explained in TKD or in other canon sentences using this construction. -- De'vID

On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 23:17, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

I guess I don’t get how you claim that your phrasing of “the fire is at its hottest” is more accurately what I’m saying than what I’m actually saying.

Use another way of phrasing this if you like. What I'm saying is that the explanation of the superlative in TKD says that the formula "A Q {law'} {Hoch} Q {puS}" means that A [= fire] is more Q [= hot] compared to everything (else), i.e., to other things, and not to itself. You're claiming that there is "ONE fire, and the place where it is hottest is at someone else’s face", in your own words, yes? If there is "ONE fire", then we're not comparing different fires, or comparing a fire with something else, right? I've paraphrased this as "the (one) fire is at its hottest" (i.e., in one place rather than anywhere else). Regardless of the phrasing, do you agree with the *idea* that you are talking about one fire, and comparing its hotness in one location to another, rather than comparing a fire to something else?

Why not suggests that the other example means “You are at your most wonderful,”?

Did you not understand why I think what you're claiming about the meanings of the two sentences makes them *dis*similar rather than similar? I *did* suggest that, if {latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} means what you say it means (that there is one fire, and it is hottest on someone else's face), then, indeed, {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} might mean exactly that. Here's what I wrote: <It's also possible that {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} could, in some context, mean that the place where you are the most wonderful warrior is in this galaxy (i.e., you wouldn't be as wonderful a warrior in other galaxies as in this one).> One way to paraphrase "the place where you are the most wonderful warrior is in this galaxy" would be "you are at your most wonderful as a warrior in this galaxy". So I did, in fact, suggest the thing that you're suggesting I didn't! Why not rephrase everything that anyone says who disagrees with you?

Because I am not rephrasing what you wrote in order to win an argument against you, or to disparage you, but to try to clarify two different meanings of "the fire is hottest". Quoting my previous message, these are: <(1) "the fire is hottest among other things" and (2) "the fire is at its hottest (e.g., than at any time or place)".> I'm not rephrasing what you wrote to change it to something else. I am just trying to distinguish two different meanings of "the fire is hottest". In the first meaning, the fire is being compared to other things. In the second meaning, the fire is being compared to itself. You insist that there is "ONE fire", correct? And that this fire is the hottest, on someone else's face? In my dialect of English, I would say "the fire is at its hottest on someone else's face" for the second case (in contrast to "the fire is the hottest thing on someone else's face" for the first). I paraphrased what you wrote simply to distinguish between these two meanings. If this is not how you would say it, we'll avoid that language. Do you at least agree that there are two ways of understanding a superlative: (1) by comparing a thing to other things, and (2) by comparing a thing to itself (in another state, such as time or place)?

I’m saying, “The fire is hottest,” and you don’t get to say that I’m saying, “The fire is at its hottest,” and convincingly pretend that that’s an error on my part for having said something I didn’t say.

And I'm saying, "the fire is hottest" has two distinct meanings. If no one is allowed to paraphrase what you write when you write something ambiguous, in order to clarify what you mean, then you're simply never going to convince anyone of what you mean. Also, no one is trying to "pretend that's an error on [your] part". I never once suggested you made an error, only that your explanation of the superlative in the {latlh qabDaq} sentence is doing something quite different than what's explained in TKD and in other known canon comparison sentences with {Hoch} in the B position. I even suggested that it's possible that Dr. Okrand either forgot how the construction works, or deliberately ignored the established grammar, or was implicitly extending it, as possibilities that might be compatible with your explanation. But fine. Without paraphrasing you, then, let's just say that "the fire is hottest" has two meanings, meaning-(1) and meaning-(2). In meaning-(1), the fire is being compared to other things. In meaning-(2), it is only being compared to itself (there is "ONE fire, and the place where it is hottest is at someone else’s face"). I am saying that, as I understand TKD, meaning-(2) is excluded based on how the comparison construction is explained, and only meaning-(1) is possible. As I understand your interpretation, it's what I have called meaning-(2). If this is not correct, how so? And if it is, do you agree that it is incompatible with a strict reading of TKD? (For emphasis: I am not saying that this is an error on your part. Kahless knows that TKD is full of holes. It could be that you're right, but that using the superlative in this way is just not explained very well.) You asked above (sarcastically, it seems) why I didn't suggest that the {qIbDaq SuvwI''e'} sentence means "you are at your most wonderful", but that is exactly what I'm suggesting it might mean if meaning-(2) of the superlative were possible. If you think there is "ONE fire, and the place where it is hottest is at someone else’s face", then why is it not possible that there is one warrior, and the place where he is the most wonderful is in this galaxy? (The way I would say this is that "the warrior is at his most wonderful in this galaxy".) Also, how do you interpret the canon sentence {DujvamDaq tlhIngan nuH tu'lu'bogh pov law' Hoch pov puS}? Do you consider it a possible interpretation of this sentence that there is only one weapon, and the place where it is best is on this ship? If not, why not? If so, do you consider all superlatives which fall into the scope of a {-Daq} to be ambiguous in the same way? If I don't get to paraphrase you when you write something ambiguous, then you don't get to claim that there is "ONE fire" without justifying it. To me, it's pretty clear that the proverb strongly implies multiple fires. But I might be wrong about this, since its meaning has never clearly been explained. I'm simply trying to understand why you're so confident that it's talking about "ONE fire", when that interpretation appears to extend how the superlative construction is known to work. -- De'vID

TL;DR: You've shown that in other known canon instances of the comparative (except for {Qam[taH]vIS...}), the context in front applies to the entire comparative. Your own analysis of your interpretation of the proverb {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS}, however, differs from your analysis of the other sentences, and actually applies {latlh qabDaq} only to the first half. (The only way the fire on someone else's face could be being compared to things not on that face is if {Hoch} is outside the scope of {latlh qabDaq}.) You're holding two mutually incompatible beliefs. Your explanation of the grammar of the other sentences differs from your explanation of this one, and so a reasonable conclusion is that this sentence is an exception to the others. On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 19:02, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

Okrand’s English translation is “The fire is always hotter on someone else’s face.” We should use that as a source of insight as to what the Klingon phrase means.

There's a line in Star Trek V, {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'}, which is supposed to mean "(Is it) difficult to hit?" According to TKD, {-meH} means "an action is being done in order to accomplish something, or for the purpose of accomplishing something". It's difficult to see how a space probe is being difficult, in order to accomplish being hit. The English sentence provides a source of insight as to what the Klingon phrase *is intended to mean*, but not what it actually does mean, at least according to the rules. The English phrase "for the purpose of" has multiple meanings, only a subset of which is the Klingon {-meH}. I think something similar is happening here.

The first odd thing to note is that the Klingon is a superlative, while the translation is merely a comparative. {qul tuj law’ Hoch tuj puS} means “The fire is hottest”, not “the fire is hotter”. The translation says, “the fire is hotter”.

Why would Okrand do that?

He could have said, in Klingon, perhaps more literally, *reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law’ qabwIjDaq qul tuj puS.* He could have replaced {-wIj} with {-maj} or some other suffix or otherwise explicitly identified the other faces providing locatives for the other side of the comparison, unless he didn’t want to break up the comparative sentence with a second context-providing locative.

I don't think we can infer his motivation, and that's not the only possible one. Another explanation is that the English sentence actually expresses a superlative concept despite using the comparative, because of the "always". Something which is "always more X" might just be better expressed as "always most X". But also, even if it had been his motivation, the sentence he ended up with seems to apply the locative only to the first half anyway, as your own analysis below shows.

In other words, maybe it’s okay to either expand on the nouns, using noun phrases or relative clauses to represent nouns, or to add context to the entire comparison by preceding the whole comparison with context with dependent clauses or nouns with Type 5 suffixes or other “head of the sentence” stuff, but maybe it’s not okay to interrupt the rigid comparative grammatical structure.

Power Klingon was released in 1993, two years after {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS} was spoken in Star Trek VI. Now, that sentence may be an exception, but it shows that it's at least okay to interrupt the comparative grammatical structure in some (possibly extremely rare) cases.

So, we’ve been assuming that it might be okay to have the comparative construction interrupted by context-providing stuff that only applies to the second part of the comparison to set it apart from similar stuff applying to the first half of the comparison. Let’s look at voragh’s impressive collection of canon he looked up of Okrand using it: [...] [The most consistent way to interpret this with other canon example is to have the locative apply to the entire comparative, since we don’t have a grammatical justification for applying a locative to a noun. Locatives apply to verbs, and we have no real explanation of how it could work applied to one or both verbs in a comparative. Using other examples as guidelines, we could interpret it as “At another persons face: “The fire is hotter than everything,” which is how a Klingon expresses “The fire is hottest”.

Here, I think, is where this breaks down. According to TKD, "The idea of something being more or greater than something else (comparative) is expressed by means of a construction which can be represented by the following formula: A Q {law'} B Q {puS}... To express the superlative, that something is the most or the greatest of all, the noun {Hoch} 'all' is used in the B position". By the rules, the comparative compares something to something else. The superlative is a special case of this, where it's comparing something to everything else (or everything else of its class, going by the examples). If we go by your analysis that {latlh qabDaq} applies to the entire construction, the only possible meaning is: "on someone else's face: the fire is hotter than everything else (i.e., everything else on that someone's face)". That is, maybe there are other fires on that person's face, or there's a fire and some water, but the fire that we're talking about is hotter than everything on that face. I don't think that's what the sentence means, and it's clear neither do you. I think that, in going from the Klingon {qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} to the English "the fire is hottest" (or vice versa), there is a sleight-of-hand where the meaning has changed, in the same way as between {qIpmeH Qatlh} and "difficult to hit". The Klingon and the English are translations of each other, *but they are not the translations with the right meaning*.

It seems that we have a choice between interpreting it as “Always, the fire is hottest at another person’s face”, which comes really close to Okrand’s offered “The fire is always hotter on someone else’s face.”

The English only seems close because its meaning has changed from what the Klingon actually says. If one translates the comparative/superlative construction to be explicit about the fact that it expresses the "idea of something being more or greater than something else (most or greatest of all)", then it would be: "always, the fire is the hottest thing on someone else's face". Now, this does actually come close to one possible meaning of "The fire is always hotter on someone else's face", but it's not the one you're suggesting Okrand intended.

The other interpretation is, “The fire on another person’s face is hotter than everything.” This interpretation is pretty clearly quite different from Okrand’s offering, and I wonder why we are still suggesting that this is what he meant.

I disagree that this is "pretty clearly quite different from Okrand's offering". Additionally, I think your translation "Always, the fire is hottest at another person's face" actually *is* this interpretation. The Klingon sentence from which you translated this, according to your analysis, restricts the comparison to the things on someone else's face. (The {Hoch} is within the scope of {latlh qabDaq}.) Your explanation of what you think the proverb means indicates that you think the fire on someone else's face *is* being compared to things not on that person's face ({qul} with the location {qabwIjDaq} or {qabmajDaq}, as you suggested above). But in that case, {Hoch} is including things not in the scope of {latlh qabDaq}, which implies that {latlh qabDaq} is restricted in scope to the first half of the comparative.

Note that again, there is no interruption of the X Q law’ Y Q puS structure.]

< qIbDaq SuvwI''e' > SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy. (ST5)

[Nope. Like the locative in the previous example, there is only one and we ’re given no reason to believe that it applies only to the first half of the comparison. We additionally have the topic/focus with {SuvwI’’e’}, but again, that seems to apply to the whole comparison.

We’re not saying, “You are at your most wonderful when you are among the warriors of the galaxy.” We are setting the boundaries of the entire comparison as being the warriors of the galaxy, and then making the usual simple comparison in the form X Q law’ Y Q puS.

It’s not “You, a soldier of the galaxy, are the most wonderful.” That totally misses Okrand’s translation.]

Exactly! Now apply this same analysis to the proverb (the scope applies to the entire comparative). Restricting the comparison to in this galaxy, and among warriors: you are the most wonderful; you are more wonderful than any other warrior in this galaxy. (parallel to) Restricting the comparison to on someone else's face: the fire is hottest; the fire is hotter than anything else on someone else's face. And compare this with your previous analysis of the proverb: At another person's face: the fire is hottest; the fire is hotter than everything (including fires on my face or our faces). Do you see how your analysis of the two sentences are actually different? You've implicitly reduced the scope of the {latlh qabDaq} to apply only to the first half of the comparative. What it looks like to me is that you believe that the scope of {-Daq} applies to the entire comparative that follows it, but you also believe that the intended meaning of the proverb is to compare the fire on someone's face to other things not on that person's face (in particular, the same fire on other people's faces). These are incompatible beliefs, but this contradiction isn't apparent to you because the way you've translated the superlative into English obscures this.

Any further extensions or presumptive interpretations don’t seem to have a lot of traction until Okrand provides some kind of canon to suggest that it gets more flexible than this.

I especially have issues with the idea that stuff at the beginning of the sentence can apply to the first half of the comparison and not the second half, since there is no evidence that one could possibly provide such context exclusively for the second half. The comparative structure is not a logical structure. It’s a grammatical fossil. You can’t monkey with it. It is not two chunks of grammatical stuff. It’s one chunk of grammatical stuff. You can add stuff before it, but you can’t add stuff into the middle, and since you can’t add it to the middle, you can’t apply stuff outside of the noun phrase/relative clause to apply to the first half of the comparison without also applying it to the second half.

In other words, there is no “scope” boundary within the comparative. Any “scope” context applies to the entire comparison. Okrand has never provided us with any mechanism for limiting the scope to the first or second half of the comparison, because all of these grammatical constructions that apply to Klingon clauses apply to the verb, and in a comparative, we invariably repeat the verb. Anything that applies to the first instance of the verb also applies to the second instance of the same verb.

Okrand has not provided any explanation for any grammatical mechanism for assuming otherwise.

But if the above is true, then {latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} *cannot* mean "the fire on someone else's face is hottest" in the sense that you've explained (i.e., there is one fire, and it is hotter on someone else's face than on my face or our face). That sentence would only have that meaning if {Hoch} is outside the scope of {latlh qabDaq}.

I can see how you logically conclude that there could be scope boundaries within the comparative grammar, but there is no evidence that the unique restrictions of this fossilized grammar fall within the valid realm of your logic. It can easily make sense to you and still be wrong.

No, you have my motivation backwards. I'm not reasoning from pure logic to how I think the grammar should work. I'm going in the other direction, from the presumed meaning of the proverb, to what the grammar must be to produce that meaning. Quoting my first comment in this thread about {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS}: <This sentence seems to be comparing "the hotness of fire on someone else's face" with "the hotness of everything (including one's own face)", and not "the hotness of fire on someone else's face" with "the hotness of everything on someone else's face". That is, the English translation is not "The fire is always hotter than anything else on someone else's face", but is implied to be "The hottest fire is always on someone else's face". The {latlh qabDaq} seems to apply only to the first half of the comparison (the {qul} and the first {tuj}).> Now, we both seem to agree that the proverb is comparing the fire on someone else's face with things not on that person's face. Whether it's the same "ONE fire" on the speaker's face, or other fires elsewhere, the point is that these are outside the scope of {latlh qabDaq}. But in that case, that sentence *is* evidence that the scope of {latlh qabDaq} is only the first half of the comparative. I think your own analysis clearly supports this. It's not about whether this makes sense to me, but whether or not we can understand the grammar in a way that's internally consistent. It is not internally consistent to simultaneously hold that the locative cannot apply to just half of a comparative *and* that the proverb is comparing the fire on someone else's face to things not on that face. (Something that makes sense to me may be wrong, but something that isn't internally consistent definitely cannot be right.) I actually think that Klingon is inconsistent here, because Dr. Okrand probably just made a mistake. In the same way that when he was translating "difficult to hit?", he looked up "in order to" and found {-meH} (which is the wrong sense of "in order to"), I think when he was translating "the fire is always hotter/is hottest", he reached for the superlative without thinking carefully through what TKD says about how it works. In other words, {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} means "the fire on someone's face is hotter than anything else" (by fiat), even though maybe a strictly conservative application of the known rules doesn't support this. (But it's also possible that he intended the comparative to be more flexible than what's described. The {Qam[taH]vIS...} sentence, at least, suggests that breaking up the comparative sometimes happens, but a conservative approach would treat this and {reH latlh qabDaq...} as fixed exceptions.) -- De'vID

Am 13.02.2021 um 10:39 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:

What is "TL;DR"?

A summary for those who do not want to read a long text. TL; DR: "Too Long; Didn't Read" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Hamletmachine

You’ve missed my point. Analysis of a Replacement Proverb is probably futile because it may very well be gibberish that lost its meaning thousands of years ago. We can process the words, shoving them through the algorithm of translation and not actually translate the meaning into anything… meaningful. I was trying to come up with something meaningful. My bad. I retract my earlier analysis, since I was leaning in toward something meaningful instead of leaning in toward something literal. It could very well mean, “On another person’s face [the fire is hottest.” And we might not really understand what that means, being perhaps a reference to a story long ago forgotten. In English, when an atheist hears someone sneeze, they might very well say, “Bless you,” out of habit/courtesy or “Ga-Zoon-Height”, even if they don’t know German. This might be like that. Note that we’re not really told that {X Q law’ X Hoch puS} means X is "Q-er than everything.” We’re told that it means “X is Q-est.” It may look like a comparative, but it’s actually a superlative. It’s not really “The fire is hotter than everything.” It’s “The fire is hottest.” It looks like it’s saying, “The fire is hotter than everything,” but that’s the logical/literal translation, as opposed to a more accurate translation of what we are told it means in Klingon. … Not that it makes TOO much difference. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Feb 13, 2021, at 3:25 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

TL;DR: You've shown that in other known canon instances of the comparative (except for {Qam[taH]vIS...}), the context in front applies to the entire comparative. Your own analysis of your interpretation of the proverb {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS}, however, differs from your analysis of the other sentences, and actually applies {latlh qabDaq} only to the first half. (The only way the fire on someone else's face could be being compared to things not on that face is if {Hoch} is outside the scope of {latlh qabDaq}.) You're holding two mutually incompatible beliefs. Your explanation of the grammar of the other sentences differs from your explanation of this one, and so a reasonable conclusion is that this sentence is an exception to the others.

On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 19:02, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>> wrote: Okrand’s English translation is “The fire is always hotter on someone else’s face.” We should use that as a source of insight as to what the Klingon phrase means.

There's a line in Star Trek V, {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'}, which is supposed to mean "(Is it) difficult to hit?" According to TKD, {-meH} means "an action is being done in order to accomplish something, or for the purpose of accomplishing something". It's difficult to see how a space probe is being difficult, in order to accomplish being hit. The English sentence provides a source of insight as to what the Klingon phrase *is intended to mean*, but not what it actually does mean, at least according to the rules. The English phrase "for the purpose of" has multiple meanings, only a subset of which is the Klingon {-meH}. I think something similar is happening here.

The first odd thing to note is that the Klingon is a superlative, while the translation is merely a comparative. {qul tuj law’ Hoch tuj puS} means “The fire is hottest”, not “the fire is hotter”. The translation says, “the fire is hotter”.

Why would Okrand do that?

He could have said, in Klingon, perhaps more literally, *reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law’ qabwIjDaq qul tuj puS.* He could have replaced {-wIj} with {-maj} or some other suffix or otherwise explicitly identified the other faces providing locatives for the other side of the comparison, unless he didn’t want to break up the comparative sentence with a second context-providing locative.

I don't think we can infer his motivation, and that's not the only possible one. Another explanation is that the English sentence actually expresses a superlative concept despite using the comparative, because of the "always". Something which is "always more X" might just be better expressed as "always most X". But also, even if it had been his motivation, the sentence he ended up with seems to apply the locative only to the first half anyway, as your own analysis below shows.

In other words, maybe it’s okay to either expand on the nouns, using noun phrases or relative clauses to represent nouns, or to add context to the entire comparison by preceding the whole comparison with context with dependent clauses or nouns with Type 5 suffixes or other “head of the sentence” stuff, but maybe it’s not okay to interrupt the rigid comparative grammatical structure.

Power Klingon was released in 1993, two years after {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS} was spoken in Star Trek VI. Now, that sentence may be an exception, but it shows that it's at least okay to interrupt the comparative grammatical structure in some (possibly extremely rare) cases.

So, we’ve been assuming that it might be okay to have the comparative construction interrupted by context-providing stuff that only applies to the second part of the comparison to set it apart from similar stuff applying to the first half of the comparison. Let’s look at voragh’s impressive collection of canon he looked up of Okrand using it: [...] [The most consistent way to interpret this with other canon example is to have the locative apply to the entire comparative, since we don’t have a grammatical justification for applying a locative to a noun. Locatives apply to verbs, and we have no real explanation of how it could work applied to one or both verbs in a comparative. Using other examples as guidelines, we could interpret it as “At another persons face: “The fire is hotter than everything,” which is how a Klingon expresses “The fire is hottest”.

Here, I think, is where this breaks down. According to TKD, "The idea of something being more or greater than something else (comparative) is expressed by means of a construction which can be represented by the following formula: A Q {law'} B Q {puS}... To express the superlative, that something is the most or the greatest of all, the noun {Hoch} 'all' is used in the B position".

By the rules, the comparative compares something to something else. The superlative is a special case of this, where it's comparing something to everything else (or everything else of its class, going by the examples).

If we go by your analysis that {latlh qabDaq} applies to the entire construction, the only possible meaning is: "on someone else's face: the fire is hotter than everything else (i.e., everything else on that someone's face)". That is, maybe there are other fires on that person's face, or there's a fire and some water, but the fire that we're talking about is hotter than everything on that face. I don't think that's what the sentence means, and it's clear neither do you. I think that, in going from the Klingon {qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} to the English "the fire is hottest" (or vice versa), there is a sleight-of-hand where the meaning has changed, in the same way as between {qIpmeH Qatlh} and "difficult to hit". The Klingon and the English are translations of each other, *but they are not the translations with the right meaning*.

It seems that we have a choice between interpreting it as “Always, the fire is hottest at another person’s face”, which comes really close to Okrand’s offered “The fire is always hotter on someone else’s face.”

The English only seems close because its meaning has changed from what the Klingon actually says. If one translates the comparative/superlative construction to be explicit about the fact that it expresses the "idea of something being more or greater than something else (most or greatest of all)", then it would be: "always, the fire is the hottest thing on someone else's face". Now, this does actually come close to one possible meaning of "The fire is always hotter on someone else's face", but it's not the one you're suggesting Okrand intended.

The other interpretation is, “The fire on another person’s face is hotter than everything.” This interpretation is pretty clearly quite different from Okrand’s offering, and I wonder why we are still suggesting that this is what he meant.

I disagree that this is "pretty clearly quite different from Okrand's offering". Additionally, I think your translation "Always, the fire is hottest at another person's face" actually *is* this interpretation. The Klingon sentence from which you translated this, according to your analysis, restricts the comparison to the things on someone else's face. (The {Hoch} is within the scope of {latlh qabDaq}.) Your explanation of what you think the proverb means indicates that you think the fire on someone else's face *is* being compared to things not on that person's face ({qul} with the location {qabwIjDaq} or {qabmajDaq}, as you suggested above). But in that case, {Hoch} is including things not in the scope of {latlh qabDaq}, which implies that {latlh qabDaq} is restricted in scope to the first half of the comparative.

Note that again, there is no interruption of the X Q law’ Y Q puS structure.]

< qIbDaq SuvwI''e' > SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy. (ST5)

[Nope. Like the locative in the previous example, there is only one and we’re given no reason to believe that it applies only to the first half of the comparison. We additionally have the topic/focus with {SuvwI’’e’}, but again, that seems to apply to the whole comparison.

We’re not saying, “You are at your most wonderful when you are among the warriors of the galaxy.” We are setting the boundaries of the entire comparison as being the warriors of the galaxy, and then making the usual simple comparison in the form X Q law’ Y Q puS.

It’s not “You, a soldier of the galaxy, are the most wonderful.” That totally misses Okrand’s translation.]

Exactly! Now apply this same analysis to the proverb (the scope applies to the entire comparative).

Restricting the comparison to in this galaxy, and among warriors: you are the most wonderful; you are more wonderful than any other warrior in this galaxy. (parallel to) Restricting the comparison to on someone else's face: the fire is hottest; the fire is hotter than anything else on someone else's face.

And compare this with your previous analysis of the proverb:

At another person's face: the fire is hottest; the fire is hotter than everything (including fires on my face or our faces).

Do you see how your analysis of the two sentences are actually different? You've implicitly reduced the scope of the {latlh qabDaq} to apply only to the first half of the comparative.

What it looks like to me is that you believe that the scope of {-Daq} applies to the entire comparative that follows it, but you also believe that the intended meaning of the proverb is to compare the fire on someone's face to other things not on that person's face (in particular, the same fire on other people's faces). These are incompatible beliefs, but this contradiction isn't apparent to you because the way you've translated the superlative into English obscures this.

Any further extensions or presumptive interpretations don’t seem to have a lot of traction until Okrand provides some kind of canon to suggest that it gets more flexible than this.

I especially have issues with the idea that stuff at the beginning of the sentence can apply to the first half of the comparison and not the second half, since there is no evidence that one could possibly provide such context exclusively for the second half. The comparative structure is not a logical structure. It’s a grammatical fossil. You can’t monkey with it. It is not two chunks of grammatical stuff. It’s one chunk of grammatical stuff. You can add stuff before it, but you can’t add stuff into the middle, and since you can’t add it to the middle, you can’t apply stuff outside of the noun phrase/relative clause to apply to the first half of the comparison without also applying it to the second half.

In other words, there is no “scope” boundary within the comparative. Any “scope” context applies to the entire comparison. Okrand has never provided us with any mechanism for limiting the scope to the first or second half of the comparison, because all of these grammatical constructions that apply to Klingon clauses apply to the verb, and in a comparative, we invariably repeat the verb. Anything that applies to the first instance of the verb also applies to the second instance of the same verb.

Okrand has not provided any explanation for any grammatical mechanism for assuming otherwise.

But if the above is true, then {latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} *cannot* mean "the fire on someone else's face is hottest" in the sense that you've explained (i.e., there is one fire, and it is hotter on someone else's face than on my face or our face). That sentence would only have that meaning if {Hoch} is outside the scope of {latlh qabDaq}.

I can see how you logically conclude that there could be scope boundaries within the comparative grammar, but there is no evidence that the unique restrictions of this fossilized grammar fall within the valid realm of your logic. It can easily make sense to you and still be wrong.

No, you have my motivation backwards. I'm not reasoning from pure logic to how I think the grammar should work. I'm going in the other direction, from the presumed meaning of the proverb, to what the grammar must be to produce that meaning.

Quoting my first comment in this thread about {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS}:

<This sentence seems to be comparing "the hotness of fire on someone else's face" with "the hotness of everything (including one's own face)", and not "the hotness of fire on someone else's face" with "the hotness of everything on someone else's face". That is, the English translation is not "The fire is always hotter than anything else on someone else's face", but is implied to be "The hottest fire is always on someone else's face". The {latlh qabDaq} seems to apply only to the first half of the comparison (the {qul} and the first {tuj}).>

Now, we both seem to agree that the proverb is comparing the fire on someone else's face with things not on that person's face. Whether it's the same "ONE fire" on the speaker's face, or other fires elsewhere, the point is that these are outside the scope of {latlh qabDaq}. But in that case, that sentence *is* evidence that the scope of {latlh qabDaq} is only the first half of the comparative. I think your own analysis clearly supports this. It's not about whether this makes sense to me, but whether or not we can understand the grammar in a way that's internally consistent. It is not internally consistent to simultaneously hold that the locative cannot apply to just half of a comparative *and* that the proverb is comparing the fire on someone else's face to things not on that face. (Something that makes sense to me may be wrong, but something that isn't internally consistent definitely cannot be right.)

I actually think that Klingon is inconsistent here, because Dr. Okrand probably just made a mistake. In the same way that when he was translating "difficult to hit?", he looked up "in order to" and found {-meH} (which is the wrong sense of "in order to"), I think when he was translating "the fire is always hotter/is hottest", he reached for the superlative without thinking carefully through what TKD says about how it works. In other words, {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} means "the fire on someone's face is hotter than anything else" (by fiat), even though maybe a strictly conservative application of the known rules doesn't support this. (But it's also possible that he intended the comparative to be more flexible than what's described. The {Qam[taH]vIS...} sentence, at least, suggests that breaking up the comparative sometimes happens, but a conservative approach would treat this and {reH latlh qabDaq...} as fixed exceptions.)

-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Agreed. I was recasting the idea, not the specific grammar. It’s not like you can breathe while being dead (except for vampires). Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of De'vID On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 18:59, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu<mailto:sboozer@uchicago.edu>> wrote: So to re-cast your first example, I would see nothing wrong with: Suvlu'taHvIS batlh potlh law' yIn potlh puS [or] Suvlu'taHvIS batlh potlh law' tlhuH potlh puS But neither of these express "breath(ing) while living".

On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 17:06, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

*From:* SuStel

*Sent:* Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:59 AM

...

It's a Maltz-said-so-special-phrase-so-shut-up-and-don't-generalize case. It is described in *The Klingon Way* as aberrant grammar.For those without a copy of *The Klingon Way* handy:

* QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS*

Better to die on our feet than live on our knees. (ST6/TKW)

(TKW p.95): More literally, this is “Dying while standing is preferable to living while kneeling.” The grammatical construction is a bit aberrant; one would expect {*QamtaHvIS}* and {*tortaHvIS}*. In proverbs, grammatical shortcuts are not uncommon. Even the Federation Standard might be considered somewhat incomplete. One would expect “*It is* better to die on our feet than *to* live on our knees.”

I don't read it as saying it's a "Maltz-said-so-special-phrase-so-shut-up-and-don't-generalize case". The above implies that this is the grammatical and expected sentence: {QamtaHvIS Hegh qaq law' tortaHvIS yIn qaq puS}. The grammar of the KGT sentence is only "a bit aberrant". It doesn't sound to me like the corrected version is particularly extraordinary. In particular, I don't see why this parallel wouldn't be grammatical: {SuvtaHvIS batlh potlh law' yIntaHvIS tlhuH potlh puS} "Honour while fighting is more important than breath while living" or "It is more important to act honourably while we fight than to draw breath while we live." I wouldn't put a {-lu'} on the two {-taHvIS} clauses, if only because the KGT example doesn't either. -- De'vID

charghwI':

While I would agree that it is definitely better to laugh while standing than to live while kneeling, you obviously mean {Hegh} instead of {Hagh}.

hahaha! I hadn't noticed that! It was an unintentional error.. I obviously meant to write {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS}. ~ Dana'an remain klingon