tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 29 09:00:35 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -taHbe' v -be'taH
According to Alan Anderson:
[In response to my argument about {-be'} applying to more than
just the preceeding syllable]
> 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.
We often do this here. Meanwhile, it helps find the point of
clarity that was previously missing. I do not remember anyone
before now stating that they believed that the {-be'} SOMETIMES
referred to more than just the previous syllable. Those arguing
that point have merely said that it modifies more than just the
previous syllable. You didn't say it ALWAYS did so, but you
also did not say it DIDN'T always do so. You made no reference
to how often it did it. I honestly thought that you were
bringing up these examples to prove that it ALWAYS referred to
the entire concept before the {-be'}. The wording can easily be
interpreted this way. My evidence for that is that I honestly
DID interpret it this way.
Hearing the argument stated that SOMETIMES it refers to more
than the previous syllable, I find the argument FAR easier to
accept. I had an "Oh, THAT'S what you meant!" moment, okay?
> Nobody is claiming that {-be'} *must* apply to the entirety of what
> comes before it.
Well, people could have been a little clearer about this. It
sounded to me like that is exactly what you were arguing.
> Usually it's both obvious and necessary that only
> the immediately preceding word or suffix is being negated.
That is exactly the point that I was aguing.
> 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}.
Okay. You've convinced me. This is easy to swallow. You are
expanding on a grammatical rule, not replacing it.
Of course, it would have been better stated as {not QongDaqDaq
Qot tlhInganpu'}, but Okrand didn't ask me, so now we are stuck
with his wording. {{:)> Anyone care to argue that {not
QongDaqDaq Qot tlhInganpu'} is not a clearer statement of that
meaning? Similar use of {not} would have improved the rest of
the examples in that paragraph.
> 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?
Actually, I never would have interpreted that as "Others helped
you, too." For me, without more context, I'd assume that {nIteb
qaQaHbe'} meant {qaQaHbe' 'ach nIQaH Hoch lathpu'}. I acted
alone by not helping you. I translate it as "Acting alone, I
did not help you." Somehow people were doing something and I
set myself apart (acting alone) by behaving differently. I am
different in my not helping.
You think it also means {qaQaH 'ej nIQaH latlhpu'}, which is
the way I would have said it instead of {nIteb qaQaHbe'}. I
might also have said it as {nItebHa' qaQaH.} You really want to
negate the adverbial, not the "entire concept". In fact, I
would not know what it would mean to negate the entire concept.
Either the helping or the acting alone is being negated. Make
up your mind. To negate both would be something different
entirely - I am not acting alone and I don't help you.
DaQaHbe'lu'. Nobody helped you. I doubt that is one of the
meanings you intended here.
I do believe that using {-be'} on a verb to negate the
adverbial is ugly. Okrand did it with {batlh bIHeghbe'}, but
then he did it before he came up with {batlhHa'}. I honestly
believe that now, he would say {batlhHa' bIHegh}, if he didn't
have the precedent to force his hand.
Meanwhile, we now HAVE as a tool the use of {-Ha'} on
adverbials. I think it is a far better tool than using {-be'}
to negate the adverbial under the vagaries of a new
interpretation of {-be'} to negate an "entire concept".
That is not to say that I don't believe examples don't exist
where it may be appropriate for {-be'} to negate more than the
preceeding syllable, but I don't think your example is one and
I suspect that a lot of OTHER examples people would, at first
blush, consider to be good ones would similarly be better
served with {-Ha'} on the adverbial or by the use of a
different adverbial. I don't think there have been ANY examples
so far, including Okrand's, that could not have been far more
clearly cast through other means than burdening {-be'} with
more than its original assignment to negate the previous
syllable. I think all the examples have simply been sloppy
casting, though I'm certainly open minded to have any
particular casting examined and more carefully evaluated. I
don't think any of these examples offer us clear, new meanings
that serve us better than more careful recastings.
I'm genuinely interested in examples where this is not true. I
cannot come up with one. Please offer one, if you can. So far,
the examples seem to be the result of one using the wrong tool
for the job and either not noticing that it is the wrong tool,
or not considering a better tool that was available.
qaqaDchu'ta', qara'?
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'