tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 28 23:09:51 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -taHbe' v -be'taH
ja' charghwI':
>wIchenmoHlaH
>wIchenbe'moHlaH
>wIchenmoHbe'laH
>wIchenmoHlaHbe'.
>
>According to TKD's explanations:
>We can make it.
>We can cause it to not form.
>We are able to not cause it to form.
>We cannot make it.
>
>According to your proposal:
>We can make it.
>We-be-formed-it-NOT can cause.(?)
>We not make it - can. [This sort of works because it sort of
>means the same thing as "We are able to not make it."]
>We can make it - NOT. [This works because it means the same
>thing as "We can't make it."]
>
>[...]
>
>Perhaps I'm just confused about your interpretation of things.
>Please, friend, tell me how you interpret these examples
>(especially the second line above where we see {-be'moH}) such
>that the negation applies to the entire concept preceeding
>{-be'}.
I need a good {no' Hol} phrase meaning "reductio ad absurdum". :-)
Misstating an opponent's argument and then successfully destroying
the misstated argument doesn't do much to oppose the true argument.
Nobody is claiming that {-be'} *must* apply to the entirety of what
comes before it. Usually it's both obvious and necessary that only
the immediately preceding word or suffix is being negated. But the
example of {QongDaqDaq Qotbe' tlhInganpu'} on TKW page 40 is given
along with {vulchoHbe' tlhinganpu'} and {ropchoHbe' tlhInganpu'},
with the parallel translations "Klingons do not [do something]." I
see nothing wrong with letting {-be'} negate the entire concept of
{QongDaqDaq Qot}.
How do you interpret {nIteb qaQaHbe'}? The direct translation of
"I didn't help you by myself" has the same ambiguity I see in the
Klingon, with the "not" either applying only to the "help" or to the
whole "help you alone" idea. If you don't permit the second way of
thinking about it, how *would* you express this idea?
-- ghunchu'wI'