tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 21 10:57:37 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -be'taH & -taHbe'
According to David Trimboli:
>
...
> 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
I think that this example can be considered exceptional for
several reasons. For one, it is a proverb of sorts; a thing one
has said for many generations. Sometimes these things are not
grammatically pretty.
For another thing, since we can generally assume this is not
being said to an immortal, we know that we shall die. Klingons
are far less polite and shy about this than humans. Since it is
obvious that the child spoken to will die, {batlh bIHeghbe'}
can only be interpreted as dying without honor.
When you combine the facts that this is to be said to a child,
that this phrase was related by Okrand before he "discovered"
the ability to append {-Ha'} to adverbials, so he could not
say, {Hoch DaSopbe'chugh vaj batlhHa' bIHegh,} and that the
child certainly knows he will die, {batlh bIHeghbe'} makes
sense as "You will not die with honor."
I really think that using this example to justify the extremely
dubious conclusion that {-be'} negates whole words regardless
of its placement among other suffixes is an EXTREMELY weak
argument.
charghwI'