tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 23 12:31:10 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -be'taH & -taHbe'
According to David Trimboli:
>
> From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>
> >{Hoch DaSopbe'chugh vaj batlhHa' bIHegh,}
> >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.
>
> Okay, how about something like {QongDaqDaq Qotbe' tlhInganpu'} "Klingons do
> not lie in bed." (TKW 40) Sure, it's a proverb, but I'm sure you'll agree
> that there's no questionable grammar here. Yet we don't mean "Klingons do
> not lie down, and they do this not-lying-down in bed," we mean "Klingons do
> not use beds to lie down in."
I can see your interpretation, but mine has always been
simpler. If you find a Klingon in bed, you won't find him lying
there. The locative sets the environment for the action and the
verb and its affixes tells you about what happens there.
> The negation works like this:
>
> [QongDaqDaq Qot]be' tlhInganpu'.
>
> Not like this:
>
> QongDaqDaq [Qotbe'] tlhInganpu'.
jIQochchu'. You can take the second interpretation and still
say:
QongDaqDaq [Qotbe'] tlhInganpu'.
ravDaq [Qot] tlhInganpu'.
In a bed, Klingons do not lie down.
On the floor, Klingons lie down.
This is EXACTLY as valid a meaning as:
Klingons lie in a bed - NOT!
Klingons lie on the floor.
When you begin with {QongDaqDaq}, you are setting a filter and
expressing that the action you describe occurs in bed. There
may be all sorts of actions occuring elsewhere, but THIS action
is being considered in bed.
You can think of it as colored lighting (it describes the
environment where a particular action took place) or a
subtractive filter (it limits the actions considered to those
which occur at this location).
When I say {wa'Hu' Qe'Daq jISop}, I'm using an additive filter.
I'm adding to the specific action {wa'Hu' jISop} a description
of where that action happened.
when I say {QongDaqDaq Qotbe' tlhInganpu'} I'm using a
subtractive filter. As a global statement, it may be true that
Klingons lie down, but within the restriction of the location
"in bed", this action does not occur.
You can put a red gel over a white light to add more red to the
color of something you are about to photograph, or you can take
that same gel and place it over a piece of white paper with red
writing on it so you can't see the writing, but you can see
blue writing on the same paper.
I see these kinds of additive or limiting functions for all
adverbail elements of the language: Time stamps, adverbials,
subordinate clauses and many verb suffixes. Meanwhile, the only
ones that {-be'} can specifically apply itself to are the
suffixes or the root of the verb itself. It does not negate the
entire sentence, except indirectly through the negation of the
syllable it follows.
> There are other examples of this sort of thing. I'm not saying that this
> proves this or that, except that it shows that negation is not always as
> simple as negating the immediately preceding verb element. If {[QongDaqDaq
> Qot]be' tlhInganpu'} is acceptable, why not {[batlh bIHegh]be'}?
If pigs can fly, why can't cows?
Neither of your examples are acceptable.
> SuStel
> Stardate 98305.8
charghwI'