choH'eghDI' starscream, f-22 raptor mojmo', ghaH 'IH law' Hoch decepticonpu' 'IH puS. qunnoH jan puqloD
On 25 November 2016 at 18:14, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
choH'eghDI' starscream, f-22 raptor mojmo', ghaH 'IH law' Hoch decepticonpu' 'IH puS.
Dapna' Daqonpu'. Megatron qam bIngDaq Optimus Prime nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS, Megatron 'IH law' Hoch Decepticon 'IH puS. -- De'vID
hahaha ! bImuj jupwI' ! bImujbej.. wa'DIch: maghwI' ghaH *optimus prime*'e' cha'DIch: starscream ghaH SuvmeH muD Duj'e' 'a truck neH ghaH *optimus prime*'e'. Hoch tIghel: truck SuvmeH muD Duj je DInuDchugh, vaj tlhoy 'IH 'Iv. f-22 'IH law'bej truck rIgh 'IH puS ! and since this came up.. jIH: {f-22 'IH law'bej truck rIgh 'IH puS} f-22 is definitely more beautiful than a lame truck. Is the {law'bej} legal ? can we add suffixes to the {law'} and {puS}, of the {... quality verb law' ... quality verb puS} construction ? megatron yIvan Hoch ! qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 28 Nov 2016 9:26 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25 November 2016 at 18:14, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
choH'eghDI' starscream, f-22 raptor mojmo', ghaH 'IH law' Hoch decepticonpu' 'IH puS.
Dapna' Daqonpu'. Megatron qam bIngDaq Optimus Prime nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS, Megatron 'IH law' Hoch Decepticon 'IH puS.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/28/2016 2:53 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
jIH: {f-22 'IH law'bej truck rIgh 'IH puS} f-22 is definitely more beautiful than a lame truck.
Is the {law'bej} legal ? can we add suffixes to the {law'} and {puS}, of the {... quality verb law' ... quality verb puS} construction ?
I don't think we've ever seen the formulaic part of a comparison sentence get a suffix. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj ! so, I'll just write: {f-22 'IH law' truck rIgh 'IH puS. teHbej !} megatron yIvan Hoch ! Qamqa' pumwI' ! qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 28 Nov 2016 9:55 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/28/2016 2:53 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
jIH: {f-22 'IH law'bej truck rIgh 'IH puS} f-22 is definitely more beautiful than a lame truck.
Is the {law'bej} legal ? can we add suffixes to the {law'} and {puS}, of the {... quality verb law' ... quality verb puS} construction ?
I don't think we've ever seen the formulaic part of a comparison sentence get a suffix.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
mayqel qunenoS:
{f-22 'IH law'bej truck rIgh 'IH puS} f-22 is definitely more beautiful than a lame truck.
Is the {law'bej} legal ? can we add suffixes to the {law'} and {puS}, of the {... quality verb law' ... quality verb puS} construction ?
SuStel:
I don't think we've ever seen the formulaic part of a comparison sentence get a suffix.
We have, but just once AFAIK. See HolQeD 13.1:10 which discusses variations to the classic {law'/puS} formula: QuchlIj vIl law'be' QuchwIj vIl puSbe' your forehead isn't ridgier than my forehead. Note that {-be'} is on *both* {law'} and {puS}. FYI, {vIl} "be ridgy (forehead)" (v). -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
this is good news ! so, my final sentence is: {f-22 'IH law'bej truck rIgh 'IH puSbej !} however, there is a stupid question I need to ask: everything in HolQeD is considered to be canon, and accepted by our emperor ? qunnoH jan puqloD On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
mayqel qunenoS:
{f-22 'IH law'bej truck rIgh 'IH puS} f-22 is definitely more beautiful than a lame truck.
Is the {law'bej} legal ? can we add suffixes to the {law'} and {puS}, of the {... quality verb law' ... quality verb puS} construction ?
SuStel:
I don't think we've ever seen the formulaic part of a comparison sentence get a suffix.
We have, but just once AFAIK. See HolQeD 13.1:10 which discusses variations to the classic {law'/puS} formula:
QuchlIj vIl law'be' QuchwIj vIl puSbe' your forehead isn't ridgier than my forehead.
Note that {-be'} is on *both* {law'} and {puS}.
FYI, {vIl} "be ridgy (forehead)" (v).
-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/29/2016 2:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
this is good news ! so, my final sentence is: {f-22 'IH law'bej truck rIgh 'IH puSbej !}
While I would understand this, and I understand the precedent upon which it's built, it's still using speculative grammar. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
it's still using speculative grammar.
what is speculative grammar ? qunnoH jan puqloD On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/29/2016 2:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
this is good news ! so, my final sentence is: {f-22 'IH law'bej truck rIgh 'IH puSbej !}
While I would understand this, and I understand the precedent upon which it's built, it's still using speculative grammar.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/29/2016 9:28 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
it's still using speculative grammar. what is speculative grammar ?
qunnoH jan puqloD
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/29/2016 2:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
this is good news ! so, my final sentence is: {f-22 'IH law'bej truck rIgh 'IH puSbej !}
While I would understand this, and I understand the precedent upon which it's built, it's still using speculative grammar.
There's no direct evidence that putting *-bej* on the *law'* and *puS* is allowed. You're extrapolating from a single example whose purpose was to bend the rules anyway. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 28 November 2016 at 20:53, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
hahaha ! bImuj jupwI' ! bImujbej..
wa'DIch: maghwI' ghaH *optimus prime*'e'
'ej Heghbej Hoch maghwI'pu'.
cha'DIch: starscream ghaH SuvmeH muD Duj'e' 'a truck neH ghaH *optimus prime*'e'.
Optimus Prime vISaHbe'. Megatron bop mu'tlheghwIj. yIlaDqa'. nuH'a' qengbogh nuH'a''e' ghaH Megatron'e'. Megatron HoS law' Starscream HoS puS. Megatron 'IH law' Starscream 'IH puS.
Hoch tIghel: truck SuvmeH muD Duj je DInuDchugh, vaj tlhoy 'IH 'Iv.
f-22 'IH law'bej truck rIgh 'IH puS !
Suvchuqchugh Megatron Starscream je, nuH'a' 'IH law' veQ mojpu'bogh DoS 'IH puS.
megatron yIvan Hoch !
maj. -- De'vID
De'vID:
Optimus Prime vISaHbe'. Megatron bop mu'tlheghwIj. yIlaDqa'.
teH. QInlIj wa'DIch vIlaDqa'ta' 'ej bIlugh 'e' vItlhoj. De'vID:
Megatron HoS law' Starscream HoS puS.
jIQochbe'. De'vID:
Megatron 'IH law' Starscream 'IH puS.
jIQoch; f-22 mojDI' starscream, ngutlhmey nov ghajmo', 'IHqu'. jIH:
megatron yIvan Hoch ! De'vID maj.
maQochbe'chu' jupwI' ! qunnoH jan puqloD megatron yIvan Hoch ! Qamqa' pumwI' !
De'vID:
Megatron qam bIngDaq Optimus Prime nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS, Megatron 'IH law' Hoch Decepticon 'IH puS.
there is something which rubs me the wrong way in this sentence.. lets analyze it together.. first it says: {Megatron qam bIngDaq Optimus Prime nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS} under the foot of megatron the head of optimus prime, which someone had separated, while he was squashing so, we are left to wonder "who was squashing that head ?" only to read next the name of "megatron", which simultaneously is the first of the two nouns in a law'/puS construction. Is this correct ? Can the subject (if megatron is indeed the subject of the first sentence), be at the same time the first noun of a law'/puS construction ? mayqel jan puqloD On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:02 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
Optimus Prime vISaHbe'. Megatron bop mu'tlheghwIj. yIlaDqa'.
teH. QInlIj wa'DIch vIlaDqa'ta' 'ej bIlugh 'e' vItlhoj.
De'vID:
Megatron HoS law' Starscream HoS puS.
jIQochbe'.
De'vID:
Megatron 'IH law' Starscream 'IH puS.
jIQoch; f-22 mojDI' starscream, ngutlhmey nov ghajmo', 'IHqu'.
jIH:
megatron yIvan Hoch ! De'vID maj.
maQochbe'chu' jupwI' !
qunnoH jan puqloD megatron yIvan Hoch ! Qamqa' pumwI' !
On 12/1/2016 10:37 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
De'vID:
Megatron qam bIngDaq Optimus Prime nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS, Megatron 'IH law' Hoch Decepticon 'IH puS. there is something which rubs me the wrong way in this sentence.. lets analyze it together..
first it says: {Megatron qam bIngDaq Optimus Prime nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS} under the foot of megatron the head of optimus prime, which someone had separated, while he was squashing
so, we are left to wonder "who was squashing that head ?" only to read next the name of "megatron", which simultaneously is the first of the two nouns in a law'/puS construction.
Is this correct ? Can the subject (if megatron is indeed the subject of the first sentence), be at the same time the first noun of a law'/puS construction ?
There is only one sentence here. /*Megatron*/*qam bIngDaq* (locative phrase) /below Megatron's feet/ /*Optimus Prime*/*nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS* (subordinate "while" clause containing a relative clause) /while he squashes Optimus Prime's separated head/ /*Megatron*/*'IH law' Hoch /Decepticon/ 'IH puS *(main clause) /Megatron is more beautiful than all Decepticons/ The locative phrase is attached to the relative clause, not the main clause: /*Megatron*/*qam bIngDaq /Optimus Prime/ nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS */while he [Megatron] squashes Optimus Prime's separated head/ The second instance of /Megatron/ in the sentence is not the subject of the subordinate clause; it is only the first noun of the comparative clause. The subject of the subordinate clause is an elided *ghaH.* You have to work out from context that *ghaH* refers to Megatron (because who else would be squashing a severed head but the entity whose feet we are directed under?). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I think I understand what you're trying to say; however, although the grammar may be correct, the meaning is somehow weird (thus the confusion). "while he's squashing the head he's the most beautiful" ??? so, as soon as he finishes squashing that head what is he ? the ugliest ? I am able to understand the grammar, but the meaning is weird (thus the confusion in the first place). qunnoH jan puqloD On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:55 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/1/2016 10:37 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
De'vID:
Megatron qam bIngDaq Optimus Prime nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS, Megatron 'IH law' Hoch Decepticon 'IH puS.
there is something which rubs me the wrong way in this sentence.. lets analyze it together..
first it says: {Megatron qam bIngDaq Optimus Prime nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS} under the foot of megatron the head of optimus prime, which someone had separated, while he was squashing
so, we are left to wonder "who was squashing that head ?" only to read next the name of "megatron", which simultaneously is the first of the two nouns in a law'/puS construction.
Is this correct ? Can the subject (if megatron is indeed the subject of the first sentence), be at the same time the first noun of a law'/puS construction ?
There is only one sentence here.
Megatron qam bIngDaq (locative phrase) below Megatron's feet
Optimus Prime nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS (subordinate "while" clause containing a relative clause) while he squashes Optimus Prime's separated head
Megatron 'IH law' Hoch Decepticon 'IH puS (main clause) Megatron is more beautiful than all Decepticons
The locative phrase is attached to the relative clause, not the main clause:
Megatron qam bIngDaq Optimus Prime nach chevlu'pu'bogh taptaHvIS while he [Megatron] squashes Optimus Prime's separated head
The second instance of Megatron in the sentence is not the subject of the subordinate clause; it is only the first noun of the comparative clause. The subject of the subordinate clause is an elided ghaH. You have to work out from context that ghaH refers to Megatron (because who else would be squashing a severed head but the entity whose feet we are directed under?).
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
levinius＠gmx.de -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel