tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 05 07:48:43 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: -taHbe' v -be'taH

According to d'Armond Speers:
> 
> 
> 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.

QapHa'pu'mo' De'wI'lIj bImoghba'. DaH bIQuchjaj!

> >>>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.

Many of the verb suffixes have adverbial meanings. These can be
negated by simply following that suffix with {-be'}. Because
the chuvmey called adverbials are not suffixes, they cannot
receive {-be'} in the same way. They can receive {-Ha'}, though
this was not known to be true when Okrand wrote the canon
example {batlh bIHeghbe'}. I personally suspect that reviewing
this example was what broght Okrand to consider adding {-Ha'}
to adverbials. As I said, I honestly believe that if Okrand
were not pressed by the earlier example, he would now state
this as {batlhHa' bIHegh}.

> 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.

I agree, though at the time Okrand wrote that example, lacking
the rule about adding {-Ha'} to an adverbial, this was as close
as Okrand could get to expressing {batlhHa' bIHegh}.

> ------------------------------
> >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)

Okrand did not state that it negated the preceding verb
concept. That is your wording, not his. By the examples he
gives and the wording he uses, it is simple to understand that
he meant that {-be'} negates the syllable which immediately
preceeds {-be'}. How else do you explain his example:

************************************************

The roving nature of {-be'} is best illustrated in teh
following set of words.
{choHoHvIp}  "you are afraid to kill me"
{choHoHvIpbe'}  "you are not afraid to kill me"
{choHoHbe'vIp}  "you are afraid to not kill me"

In the second word, the negated notion is "afraid" (that is,
"not afraid") and {-be'} folows {-vIp}. In the third word, the
negated notion is "kill" (that is, "not kill), so {-be'}
follows {HoH}.

*********************************************************

In the vast majority of cases, this interpretation is
stone-cold right and NOBODY can argue with it. In a few cases,
which I personally consider to be simply sloppy constructions,
especially those predating the use of {-Ha'} on adverbials,
Okrand does negate more than the preceeding syllable. In an
argument off this list with Krankor, I've agreed that this is
an acceptable, but inferior grammatical construction. In a real
langauge, the rules are meant to explain useage. If useage
differs from the rules, then the rules are inaccurate.

Note that for this language, OUR useage is not as signficant as
OKRAND'S useage and he has used this in this way. The result is
not as clear as the vast majority of negation examples, but it
does exist and I accept it as exeptional (if not very good). I
do NOT accept a global replacement of the clear and accurate
rule that in the vast majority of cases, {-be'} refers to the
previous syllable and only to the previous syllable.

If you feel that I am wrong in this, I will begin to recite
every canon example of negation I can find as evidence for the
validity of my interpretation. Do you really care to endure
that?

charghwI'

Back to archive top level