tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 22 10:43:22 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Idea.
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Idea.
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 13:43:18 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Silauren Half-Elven" at Nov 21, 94 11:44 pm
According to Silauren Half-Elven:
>
> > tlhIngan Hol vIghItlh 'e' vImevQo'! qaqoy'! reH jabbI'IDlIj muQaH.
>
> well, not that its my place to correct you, but let me say a couple of
> things here:
>
> > tlhIngan Hol vIghItlh 'e' vImevQo'!
>
> <-Qo'> is a suffix only used on imperatives; <-be'> is what you want
> here. <-be'> acts as the negation of most verbs, but it can't go on
> imperatives; that's why we have <-Qo'>. maj!
Oops. Not quite. {-Qo'} has two uses. One is with imperatives.
It is never okay to use {-be'} with an imperative. Only {-Qo'}
(or {-Ha'}) works to negate an imperative. Meanwhile, for
non-imperative verbs, {-be'} is a simple negation, {-Qo'}
indicates a refusal, and {-Ha'} is a kind of stronger negation,
usually less passive than {-be'} indicating an agressive act
toward the negative. Using {mev} as an example:
vImevbe'
I am not stopping, I didn't stop, or I don't expect to stop,
depending on tense implied by context.
vImevQo'
I refuse to stop, I refused to stop, or I won't stop, depending
on tense implied by context.
vImevHa'
I tried to stop, but stumbled, tripped, my brakes failed or
otherwise, I failed my attempt to stop. I "misstopped". Again,
context sets the tense.
Given this, the original post was correct.
> --naQ'avwI'
charghwI'