tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 15 17:11:11 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 262
> According to Matt Treyvaud:
> ..
> > >
> > > TKD page 172: "I wasn't there." {pa' jIHpu'be'}
> > >
> ..
> > ..
>
> The first thing to know is that {-be'} can be applied to any
> suffix except Type 9. Given that, my spin would be:
>
> pa' jIH = I am there.
>
> pa' jIHbe' = I am not there.
>
> pa' jIHbe'pu' = I have been not there. In other words, I have
> not spent my entire life in that spot. The act is complete that
> I have been some other place than there.
>
> pa' jIHpu' = I have been there.
>
> pa' jIHpu'be' = I have not been there. The act is not complete
> that I have been there. If I say that to you and I am obviously
> not there at the time, then obviously I have never been there.
jIyaj. But then what if you have been there before but were not there at
the time in question? - e.g. a murder in your kitchen (which you didn't
commit). A better way to express all the meanings, I think, would be
{poHvetlh qaStaHvIS, pa' jIHbe'}... this seems much less ambiguous. {pa'
jIHpu'be'} and {pa' jIHbe'pu'} both seem flawed to me.
Incidentally, do we know now how to handle {je}-ing more than two nouns?
If so... how is it done? (my money's still on listing them and putting
{je} at the end).
>
> charghwI'
>
C /\ T
F /()\ C ...CM is ATMA!
C /____\ ...http://ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au/~cthulhu/say-it.html
GANTA