tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 16 13:49:08 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: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:11:19 -0400
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>According to David Trimboli:
>>
>> Since something like {-Qo'} must, by necessity, negate the whole word, it
is
>> not inconceivable that {-be'} could do that too.
>
>Of course, the only way to make that assumption is to ignore
>everything Okrand says about {-be'} modifying the preceding
>syllable, right there in TKD...
Not everything. We have examples which show that {-be'} is not always as
simple as that. {Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'} is a good one. "Eat
everything or you will die without honor." Literally, {batlh bIHeghbe'}
looks like "you will not-die with honor." In otherwords, you will remain
alive with honor. That's not what it means. It *means* {**batlhbe'**
bIHegh}, but {batlhbe'} isn't a word. Later, Okrand made up {batlhHa'}, but
not in time to make it in that {batlh bIHeghbe'} saying. {-be'} doesn't
*always* immediately precede the element it negates.
>> >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.
>
>jIQochchu'. The latter clearly means, "I continue to not be
>noisy." To interpret it as, "I am not continuously being noisy"
>is to ignore the placement of {-be'}.
I didn't say that. Look again. I said, "I am continuously not being noisy"
for the second sentence. I might even reword this some more and say it as
"I am continuously being not-noisy." You said the same thing as I did.
>Okrand tells us that the
>placement is significant in that it modifies the preceeding root
>or suffix. How can anyone argue with this?
Because there are a few counter-examples, such as the one I mentioned above.
>{-Qo'} creates some
>interesting problems, but {-be'} does not need to inherit them.
Actually, my point was that the "interesting problems" of {-Qo'} *might* be
able to help us justify the {chuStaHbe'} = "not continuously-being-noisy"
interpretation. Without such an interpretation, {-taHbe'} must mean
"discontinuously."
SuStel
Stardate 98290.8