tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 28 04:02:13 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC (old)- SaQum
- From: d'Armond Speers <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC (old)- SaQum
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 15:57:44 -0400 (EDT)
charghwI'vo':
> It makes sense for sentences like {jISo'meH jIchuSQo'}, meaning
> "In order to hide, I will not be noisey." But how would I say,
> "I refuse to be quiet in order to hide!"? By this, I mean that
> I want to hide, but I will not go so far as to remain quiet in
> order to accomplish that goal. "I will not surrender in order
> to make peace!" How would I say that?
It seems to me that the English sentence "I will not surrender in
order to make peace" can have both possible meanings. That's pretty
common with negation in English sentences. Consider something like
"The father did not buy the car for his son." What is negated? It
depends on where you put the stress. "It was not the father, but the
mother, who...." "He did not buy it, he rented it." "He didn't buy it
for his son, but for his daughter." "He bought a truck, not a car."
So, I believe the Klingon sentence in question has at least two
semantic interpretations regarding the scope of negation, a prefectly
normal instance of ambiguity in language.
> charghwI'
--Holtej