tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 18 06:27:50 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -be'taH & -taHbe'
- From: Jon Brown <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -be'taH & -taHbe'
- Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 06:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
(Original message 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.
Thanks.
If nothing else this made me re-read the whole Rover section.
Because the whole point of the fathers statement was to re-emphasis
the choSbe'taH as a subtle way of re-affirming that the child WAS
being noisy, against the childs comment of choStaHbe', which avoided
'admitting to the crime'. I have therefore changed my line to:
vav: bImevta'mo' neH bIchuSbe'taH
>Since something like {-Qo'} must, by necessity, negate the whole
word, it is
>not inconceivable that {-be'} could do that too.
If you mean the verb construction preceding it then I fully agree with
you but not if you mean the whole construction then I don't. I have
felt for some time that MO's examples (that I can remember) work
fine, with the translations he gives, if you take that approach. SEE
SuStel's example later.
>>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.
>> >
>> >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'}.
MS replied to SuStel:
>Likely {DaH bImevchoHpu'} is closer to what was intended. The
>beginning of the stoppage is complete, but the stopping has not
>yet stopped. {{:)>
As mentioned earlier the father was answering back to the
non-admittance statement made by the child. However the 'being noisy'
had stopped and the father wanted to keep it that way.
>>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...
I have read through the Rover section several times on this occasion
and cannot find anywhere referring to -be' negating only the suffix or
verb preceding it. However, MO does say, "it follows the concept being
negated."
Doesn't the concept mean the construction preceding -be' but not
following it.
>>{-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."
"According to my dictionary dis- is a prefix derived from Latin
indicating 'opposite', 'not' as in …………, discontinue."
So why does discontinously not mean the same as not-continously.
If we're discussing where the dash goes, 'being noisy in a
non-continuous fashion,' or 'not….continuously-being-noisy' mean the
same anyway.
>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.
WHY!
When the time comes, every Klingon wants to 'die-with-honour' so to be
told 'not-die-with-honour' (as you put it) would be a great threat
indeed and means the same as, 'die without honour'. Unless that is
you mean we should take the words not-die, take that meaning (live)
out of context and place it back into the sentence.. I can find no
evidence that MO does this except when it has the same meaning.
qe'San
Jon Brown
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com