law'/puS scope brief conclusion
For those who chose to not read the longer post, a shorter one; a conclusion without including the process of discovery. Looking at all of the examples voragh provided of canon comparatives and superlatives, Okrand remained true to his explanation in TKD that there is no alternative grammatical structure for comparing two things in Klingon. It’s always [X Q law’ Y Q puS] where X and Y are nouns and Q is a verb of quality (like {tIn} or {chuS}). Canon examples expand on this to show that any noun phrase or relative clause can function as a noun (in the role of X or Y) in comparatives, and the entire comparative can be preceded by a dependent clause, an adverbial, or a noun with a Type 5 suffix, which provides context for the comparison. At all times, the comparison behaves as a fossilized grammatical form that does not allow alteration. In particular, while you can logically conclude that the comparison consists of two halves, each of which might exist in different contexts, each deserving different adverbials, different dependent clauses, and different Type 5 nouns in order to clarify the differences in context between the two things being compared, but that logic has no evidence of being grammatically allowed. Okrand never interrupts <[Context providing head stuff] X Q law’ Y Q puS> to form what one might logically wish to conclude would be allowed: *<[Context providing head stuff] X Q law’ [Different context providing head stuff] Y Q puS>*. Maybe more context in the future will change this, but for now, this suggested extension is not clearly valid. Assuming that you can’t have separate scope for the second half of the comparative, there’s no justification for assuming that the head stuff could be restricted to the first half of the comparative. While the logical view of the comparative sees two halves, the fossilized grammatical structure appears to be one unit, and if there are any preceding context, there’s no obvious justification for assuming it could have “scope” other than over the entire comparative. The only time one could concern oneself with the scope of what I’ve been calling “head stuff” would be if that head stuff appeared before a dependent clause preceding a comparative, since you might wonder whether the head stuff applied to the dependent clause or to the comparative, but if you think about it, since the dependent clause applies to the comparative, it’s head stuff would also apply to the comparative. Keep in mind that in a normal Klingon sentence, the head stuff applies to the verb. The verb’s action happens in the location of the locative at the time of the time stamp in the manner of the adverbial, etc. In a comparative, there is one verb that such head stuff would apply to and that verb is invariably repeated. There is no reason to assume that the head stuff would apply to one instance and not the other. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
TL;DR: You still haven't answered the only relevant question: if a locative before a comparative always applies to the entire construction, what's the grammar which allows {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} to mean "the fire is always hotter on someone else's face"? On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 17:35, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
[...] Okrand remained true to his explanation in TKD that there is no alternative grammatical structure for comparing two things in Klingon. It’s always [X Q law’ Y Q puS] where X and Y are nouns and Q is a verb of quality (like {tIn} or {chuS}).
Can you quote from the passage in TKD where it says this description of the comparative is exhaustive? Okrand never interrupts <[Context providing head stuff] X Q law’ Y Q puS>
to form what one might logically wish to conclude would be allowed: *<[Context providing head stuff] X Q law’ [Different context providing head stuff] Y Q puS>*.
Never? Do you mean except for {Qam[taH]vIS Hegh qaq law' tor[taH]vIS yIn qaq puS}, the very sentence that started this discussion?
Assuming that you can’t have separate scope [...]
While the logical view of the comparative sees two halves [...]
You keep writing "logic" this and "assuming" that. But can you acknowledge that there is an *actual counterexample* that contradicts your claim? You'd previously written that the sentences suggested by mayqel qunen'oS, based on the grammar of the {Qam[taH]vIS...} sentence, seem fine to you. Is this grammatical structure an exception to your insistence that the comparative doesn't have two halves? Did you change your mind?
[...] There is no reason to assume that the head stuff would apply to one instance and not the other.
But it's not an *assumption*. The way that evidence works is that if you produce a dozen, or a thousand, or even a million examples which doesn't show X, it doesn't prove that X is never true. But if there is just *one* example of X, then that's sufficient reason to conclude that X is sometimes true. You keep asserting that there is "no reason" and "no evidence" that the two halves of a comparative can have different contexts. But we already know of one canon example ({Qam[taH]vIS...}). TKW says that grammar is "a bit aberrant; one would expect {QamtaHvIS}... and {tortaHvIS}". In other words, it's allowed to put a subordinate clause in front of each half of a comparative (at least in some situations). If this isn't actual evidence that the comparative construction has two halves, then what is it? You also keep repeating that every canon instance of comparatives and superlatives (except the specific ones under discussion) shows that the same context applies to both sides of the comparison. Leaving aside that this isn't true for {Qam[taH]vIS...}, doesn't this actually *support* my observation that your explanation of the grammar of the comparative is internally inconsistent? You've previously explained that you think the meaning of the proverb is that there is "ONE fire, and the place where it is hottest is at someone else’s face" (meaning that it is hotter than the same fire on my face or our face or whatever). If {latlh qabDaq} restricts the entire comparative, then what's the grammar that produces this meaning? If all canon examples of comparatives and superlatives (excepting {Qam[taH]vIS...}) apply the same context to the entire construction, how is this proverb comparing the one fire on someone else's face to anything not on that face? Until you answer that question, this sentence appears to be a counterexample to your claims. A million examples doesn't prove a rule, but a single counterexample disproves it. Every time you repeat that all (other) canon comparatives and superlatives apply the same context to the entire construction, you're just highlighting how different {reH latlh qabDaq...} is from all of them. So one of two things has to be true: (1) it's a counterexample to your claims about comparatives; (2) it means something different than what you think it means. -- De'vID
Chill. You make good points. I’ll look deeper when I have time. I’m not trying to disrespect you. I’m just looking for a little more truth where I can find it. My search is imperfect, but even a blind pig finds a nice nut now and then. Passion here is perhaps less necessary than it seems. I mean no offense. The example that started this discussion wasn’t in the list that voragh produced and I was dealing with someone else’s arrogant tldr. People don’t say tldr if they aren’t trying to insult you. They just delete and move on. I hear you. Thanks for the exception to what I thought was a rule. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’
On Feb 13, 2021, at 6:15 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
TL;DR: You still haven't answered the only relevant question: if a locative before a comparative always applies to the entire construction, what's the grammar which allows {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} to mean "the fire is always hotter on someone else's face"?
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 17:35, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
[...] Okrand remained true to his explanation in TKD that there is no alternative grammatical structure for comparing two things in Klingon. It’s always [X Q law’ Y Q puS] where X and Y are nouns and Q is a verb of quality (like {tIn} or {chuS}).
Can you quote from the passage in TKD where it says this description of the comparative is exhaustive?
Okrand never interrupts <[Context providing head stuff] X Q law’ Y Q puS> to form what one might logically wish to conclude would be allowed: *<[Context providing head stuff] X Q law’ [Different context providing head stuff] Y Q puS>*.
Never? Do you mean except for {Qam[taH]vIS Hegh qaq law' tor[taH]vIS yIn qaq puS}, the very sentence that started this discussion?
Assuming that you can’t have separate scope [...] While the logical view of the comparative sees two halves [...]
You keep writing "logic" this and "assuming" that. But can you acknowledge that there is an *actual counterexample* that contradicts your claim?
You'd previously written that the sentences suggested by mayqel qunen'oS, based on the grammar of the {Qam[taH]vIS...} sentence, seem fine to you. Is this grammatical structure an exception to your insistence that the comparative doesn't have two halves? Did you change your mind?
[...] There is no reason to assume that the head stuff would apply to one instance and not the other.
But it's not an *assumption*. The way that evidence works is that if you produce a dozen, or a thousand, or even a million examples which doesn't show X, it doesn't prove that X is never true. But if there is just *one* example of X, then that's sufficient reason to conclude that X is sometimes true.
You keep asserting that there is "no reason" and "no evidence" that the two halves of a comparative can have different contexts. But we already know of one canon example ({Qam[taH]vIS...}). TKW says that grammar is "a bit aberrant; one would expect {QamtaHvIS}... and {tortaHvIS}". In other words, it's allowed to put a subordinate clause in front of each half of a comparative (at least in some situations). If this isn't actual evidence that the comparative construction has two halves, then what is it?
You also keep repeating that every canon instance of comparatives and superlatives (except the specific ones under discussion) shows that the same context applies to both sides of the comparison. Leaving aside that this isn't true for {Qam[taH]vIS...}, doesn't this actually *support* my observation that your explanation of the grammar of the comparative is internally inconsistent?
You've previously explained that you think the meaning of the proverb is that there is "ONE fire, and the place where it is hottest is at someone else’s face" (meaning that it is hotter than the same fire on my face or our face or whatever). If {latlh qabDaq} restricts the entire comparative, then what's the grammar that produces this meaning? If all canon examples of comparatives and superlatives (excepting {Qam[taH]vIS...}) apply the same context to the entire construction, how is this proverb comparing the one fire on someone else's face to anything not on that face? Until you answer that question, this sentence appears to be a counterexample to your claims. A million examples doesn't prove a rule, but a single counterexample disproves it.
Every time you repeat that all (other) canon comparatives and superlatives apply the same context to the entire construction, you're just highlighting how different {reH latlh qabDaq...} is from all of them. So one of two things has to be true: (1) it's a counterexample to your claims about comparatives; (2) it means something different than what you think it means.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 at 04:52, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
People don’t say tldr if they aren’t trying to insult you. They just delete and move on.
You've misunderstood what "TL;DR" means. It means the writer thinks their *own* post is too long, so they're providing a short summary for those who don't want to read the whole thing. It's like "SKI" (summary for the Klingon impaired), except for the time-impaired instead. -- De'vID
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 at 07:18, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
You've misunderstood what "TL;DR" means. It means the writer thinks their *own* post is too long, so they're providing a short summary for those who don't want to read the whole thing. It's like "SKI" (summary for the Klingon impaired), except for the time-impaired instead.
The thing is that long posts might be off-putting to mailing list members who might have an opinion about something, but don't want to engage in a grammatical dissection or a debate. But long posts tend to generate long posts, because a person replying to one might feel like they might be accused of avoiding the issue if they don't address every point. A "TL;DR" allows people to reply to a long post with a short one, by ignoring everything not in the "TL;DR". It's not an insult (at least, that wasn't its original purpose, though perhaps some people use it as one). But anyway: does *anyone else* have an opinion of what {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} means, and what the comparative grammar is doing in that sentence? (Short answers only.) -- De'vID
It’s an idiom, like, “They looked at me like I was a red-headed step-child.” The English response, “How about that,” is reportedly impossible to translate, meaningfully. I can’t even tell if it is a statement or a question, and English is my primary language. We don’t know what {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law’ Hoch tuj puS} means to a Klingon. We know when and how it is used, and we can translate the words, but the English translation of the Klingon words doesn’t convey the meaning that a Klingon gets from those words. It’s an example of the deep connection between language and culture. Much of the time, you can translate stuff from one language to another without needing a deep understanding of the underlying culture, but “replacement proverbs” is not one of those areas. They are fossilized things that you say without thinking in response to a situation. You can’t change it, trying to be clever and point to someone and say, {DaH qabDajDaq qul tuj law’ Hoch qul puS} without getting some strange, distrusting looks from the Klingons near you, since you would be revealing just how alien you are, and how ignorant you are of Klingon culture. Sent from my iPad
On Feb 14, 2021, at 1:49 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 at 07:18, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote: You've misunderstood what "TL;DR" means. It means the writer thinks their *own* post is too long, so they're providing a short summary for those who don't want to read the whole thing. It's like "SKI" (summary for the Klingon impaired), except for the time-impaired instead.
The thing is that long posts might be off-putting to mailing list members who might have an opinion about something, but don't want to engage in a grammatical dissection or a debate. But long posts tend to generate long posts, because a person replying to one might feel like they might be accused of avoiding the issue if they don't address every point. A "TL;DR" allows people to reply to a long post with a short one, by ignoring everything not in the "TL;DR". It's not an insult (at least, that wasn't its original purpose, though perhaps some people use it as one).
But anyway: does *anyone else* have an opinion of what {reH latlh qabDaq qul tuj law' Hoch tuj puS} means, and what the comparative grammar is doing in that sentence? (Short answers only.)
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (2)
-
De'vID -
Will Martin