tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 26 15:08:48 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 16:16:13 -0400
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>I honestly believe we lose far more than we gain by embracing
>this very new reinterpretation of one of the oldest elements of
>Klingon grammar.
It's not really that new. I seem to recall hearing similar arguments in the
past. I'm not sure if they were on the mailing list (I think they were) or
in private correspondence, but it has definitely been discussed before now.
>Let me try to come up with examples that
>illustrate my problem with your (and Krankor's) approach. Let's
>take an example Okrand gives us:
>
>wIchenmoHlaH
>wIchenbe'moHlaH
>wIchenmoHbe'laH
>wIchenmoHlaHbe'.
This isn't really in question. It's not an all-or-nothing things we're
talking about here. In most cases, {-be'} works exactly as you say it does.
Once in a while, however, it negates more than just the immediately
preceding element. {batlh bIHeghbe'} and {QongDaqDaq Qotbe' tlhInganpu'}
are two examples of this.
This fluxuating negation also occurs in English. "You will not die with
honor." Exactly the same thing is happening here. Does it mean "You will
remain alive with honor," or does it mean "You will die dishonorably"? We
know it means the latter, but one could easily interpret it to mean the
former.
SuStel
Stardate 98318.5