tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 06 06:14:48 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -taHbe' v -be'taH
I was not responding to the idea that sometimes {-be'} is used
to refer to more than the preceeding syllable. I was responding
to the suggestion that a new, explicit definition be accepted
that {-be'} negates verbal concepts. It was stated lacking any
reference to "sometimes" or any other limiting context. It was
stated as if it were the one and only definition of how {-be'}
is to be used.
I accept that {-be'} sometimes (in unnecessarily vague and
sloppy instances) negates more than the preceeding syllable. I
do not accept that this is the norm and that we should toss out
the idea that {-be'} normally negates only the previous
syllable.
Okrand's examples in TKD in the section where he describes how
{-be'} functions clearly points to its best and clearest use.
{-be'} works best when applied to the meaning of only one
syllable. If we lose that, we lose a very valuable tool for the
language.
I will not respond strongly against anyone who says, "Obviously
there are exceptional times when {-be'} refers to more than the
preceeding syllable." I will continue to respond to anyone who
says, "{-be'} negates verbal concepts" or "{-be'} negates
everything that preceeds it" without making it quite clear that
this is exceptional useage and that in the vast majority of
useage which far more clearly states its intent, {-be'}
obviously negates only the preceeding syllable.
charghwI'
According to David Trimboli:
>
> From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>
>
> >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?
>
> Your doing so wouldn't prove anything. Your use of {-be'} negating the
> immediately preceding element DOES happen. It happens MOST of the time.
> This is not in question. But that's not ALL that can happen. Sometimes,
> {-be'} negates more than just the immediately preceding syllable. I've
> already pointed out two "canon" examples of this, and I'll bet there are
> more. I, however, have no intention of going through the entire canon,
> because I've already found counterexamples.
>
> This negation business is not an all-or-nothing deal.
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 98343.0
>
>
>
>