tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 14 16:54:51 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -taHbe' v -be'taH
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -taHbe' v -be'taH
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:07:48 -0400
From: Jon Brown <[email protected]>
>A child is being very noisy so the father shouts:
>
>vav: bIchuStaH yImev
>
>After stopping the child replies (as children often do):
>
>puq: jIchuStaHbe'
> - I'm not continuing to be noisy.
>
>vav: DaH bImevlI' yIchuSbe'taH
> - Now you've stopped Continue not being noisy!
{DaH bImevlI'} means, "Now you are in the process of stopping." "Now you
have stopped" is {DaH bImevpu'}. Furthermore, you cannot use {-be'} on an
imperative verb. This leads to something interesting. The command MUST be
{yIchuStaHQo'} "don't continuously be noisy!" because {-Qo'} must come
between Type 8 and Type 9 suffixes. The only other way to negate just the
verb in an imperative is with {-Ha'}, but {-Ha'} is not simple negation.
Since something like {-Qo'} must, by necessity, negate the whole word, it is
not inconceivable that {-be'} could do that too.
>SUMMARY
>
>jIchuStaHbe' - I'm not continuing to be noisy.
>
> jIchuSbe'taH - I'm continuing to not be noisy.
These might also be interpreted as "I am not continuously being noisy" and
"I am continuously not being noisy," respectively. Whether the "not
continuously being noisy" means "discontinuously being noisy" or "not
continuously-being-noisy" is the big question.
SuStel
Stardate 98285.9