tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 26 11:21:19 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: "you will die without honor"
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: "you will die without honor"
- Date: Sun, 26 Oct 97 19:20:52 UT
[email protected] on behalf of William H. Martin wrote:
> > I would translate the original sentence as
> > "If you don't eat everything you will, honorably, not die" and be entirely
> > correct. So either this construction is ambiguous, and a more accurate
> > statement should be made, or this is an old construction obeying ancient
> > rules. That seems likely.
>
> jIQochbe'chu'. It just looks rather ugly, but we are stuck with
> it. I typically agree with jupwI', ghunchu'wI', but this time I
> think he reached a bit far, built something on too weak a
> foundation.
I'm not sure that Qermaq's and ghunchu'wI''s interpretations are entirely at
odds with each other. Clearly, the sentence in question shows the {-be'}
negating the adverbial. But there's no reason to think this *isn't* an older
form of grammar which isn't in TKD. It *might* instead be that {-be'} can
negate adverbials anywhere, but then why haven't we seen it elsewhere (unless
I'm forgetting another example)?
If I had to come up with an explanation, I'd guess that {-be'} once did modify
the adverbial, or the entire adverbial plus verb, or whatever. In more recent
times, a movement for more precision led to using a different negative suffix,
{-Ha'}, on adverbials, and {-be'} can no longer do that job.
SuStel
Stardate 97820.1