tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 05 01:50:22 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: -taHbe' v -be'taH


This is from /qe'San/ ([email protected]), not me, so if you reply or quote,
please use correct attributions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Brown [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: -taHbe'   v   -be'taH

Sorry I know this subject now seems to be laid to rest but I've being
trying to get this message on the list for over a week.  It seems to
go alright and I didn't get any error messages but just hasn't ended
up on the LIST.  If it makes it this is the fourth attempt.

>>>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

>charghwI' wrote:
>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.

I can't see what's wrong with it. MO wrote that the ADVERBIAL's
describe the manner of the activity. To me this means that yes the
verb root and the adverbial are definitely linked and the -be' negates
this.

>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 think that "die without honour" and "not die with honour" are
different. The first emphasises the 'dying without honour' (you might
already have no honour so who cares) whilst the second emphasises that
'when the time comes you will not do so honourably,' something that
would put dread into any Klingon.

------------------------------
>SuStel wrote:
>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."

>The negation works like this: [QongDaqDaq Qot]be' >tlhInganpu'.
>
>Not like this: QongDaqDaq [Qotbe'] tlhInganpu'.
>
>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'}?

Where does it say that -be' negates the preceding part of the
sentence.  I thought this discussion was about the whether or not -be'
negates:
1. The preceding verb concept (as stated by MO).
2. The preceding suffix only
3. The preceding verb root only (no matter where it is).
4. The whole verb Construction (no matter where it is)

Just a thought but if 2. was correct -be' would be a suffix-suffix and
not a verb-suffix. (sorry Qermaq I just had to put those dashes in)

Since this sentence has been brought in consider:
chIch QongDaqDaq  Qotbe'  tlhInganpu' = Klingons do not purposefully
lie in bed.

I put that in as an e.g. of what I said earlier, ADVERBIALS ARE LINKED
TO THE VERB NOT THE NOUNS (obviously it's linked to the sentence as a
whole but only through its affect on the verb)


charghwI' wrote about QongDaqDaq being a filter… I've not repeated it
but just to say, "I loved it."

>If pigs can fly, why can't cows? (charghwI')

In Britain it's 'cause they've got BSE.

-----------------------------
DIGEST713
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:41:12 -0400
From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
To: "INTERNET:[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: -be'taH & -taHbe'
Message-ID: <[email protected]>



I just remembered a canon example of a Type 7 suffix with a rover,
that might be relevant to this discussion.  (I haven't been following
it very closely.)

tay'taHbe' 'Iw bIQ je.
Blood and water don't mix.

Qapla'
qoror

------------------------------
------------------------------


From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>


>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.

YES!

Again, I'm not saying the [Qotbe'] sentence has the valid meaning.  In
fact, I say the [QongDaqDaq Qot] sentence is the valid
interpretation.  My purpose is simply to show that {-be'} has a
tendency to negate more than just the immediately preceding verb or
verb suffix.

"-be' FOLLOWS THE CONCEPT  BEING NEGATED." NOT THE 'VERB' OR THE 'VERB
SUFFIX'

EG. 'continuously NOT-(BEING NOISY)' & 'NOT-(CONTINOUSLY BEING NOISY)'




ghunchu'wI' wrote:

>TKD Section 4.3. "Rovers" (page 46):
>
>  {-be'} "not"
>  This is the general suffix of negation, translated as >English
>  /not/.  It follows the concept being negated.
>
>It doesn't say "syllable".  It doesn't say "verb or >suffix".  It
says "concept".  The examples given on that >page all apply it to a
single morpheme, but other examples >make sense to me if the idea of
"concept" is treated a >little less restrictively.  {batlh bIHeghbe}
"You will not >die with honor" is a very powerful example; the "not"
is >being applied to more than a single word.

At last someone else is talking about concept's

>
>How about {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHbe'}?  It sure looks to >me like
that's a simple negation of the entire phrase >{tlhIngan Hol
vIjatlhlaH}.
>
>-- ghunchu'wI'

The fact that the object is specified doesn't really matter to what is
being negated.  The negation and meaning works fine and in the same
way on the preceding verb concept whether it's stated or not. i.e. 'I
can't speak Klingon' or 'I can't speak it'.


------------------------------
It seems that some students of the language would have us believe that
-be' either negates only the suffix/verb preceding it or that it
negates the whole verb construction or even the whole sentence
preceding it. However, MO tells us it's the preceding concept. If we
now look at -qu' in TKD MO has been kind enough to include a selection
with
-be'

MO tells us that:

	nuQaw'qu'be' = 'they have not finished us off'

If we're supposed to take only the -qu' as being negated then -be'qu'
= not-emphasising making the sentence above 'they have (no emphasis)
destroyed us' THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE CASE as that's the opposite.

The -be' negates [Qaw'qu']

Negating the 'preceding verb concept' WORKS!

MORE:
pIHoHvIpbe'qu'	= we are NOT afraid to kill you.
pIHoHvIpqu'be'	= we are not AFRAID to kill you.
pIHoHqu'vIpbe'	= we are not afraid to KILL you

TRY negating just the preceding suffix or the whole construction here.
IT WON'T WORK! Not if you want the same translation as MO.

If nothing else I hope that answers the 'negates preceding syllable'
camp.



qe'San






_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Back to archive top level