tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 20 09:06:12 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -be'taH & -taHbe'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -be'taH & -taHbe'
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 17:58:39 -0400
From: Jon Brown <[email protected]>
>>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.
Er, I'm SuStel, and I wrote that.
>>>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.
It has been discussed by Okrand, such as in TKW where he points out the
difference between {-be'nIS} and {-nISbe'}. *Most* of the time, {-be'}
negates only that which immediately precedes it, and nothing else.
>>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.
I didn't say it was different. I just find it easier to use the word
"discontinuous" than the pseudo-word "not-continuous."
>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 they don't. "being noisy non-continously" means you definitely are
being noisy, while "not being-noisy-continuously" could mean your noise is
present but discontinuous, or it could mean that you are not being noisy at
all.
>>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.
You're not looking at it literally. {bIHeghbe'} "You will not die." {batlh
bIHeghbe'} "You will not die, and you will do that (failing to die) with
honor." That's not what the saying means. The saying means "You will die
with honor — NOT!" See? In the first interpretation, we assumed that
{-be'} could only negate the element immediately preceding it. In the
actual meaning, we must assume that {-be'} negates (1) the adverbial, or (2)
the entire sentence.
SuStel
Stardate 98299.6