tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 30 05:10:06 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:09:42 EST
In a message dated 99-11-29 16:11:50 EST, you write:
<< KLBC: <Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj
vaghHu' <Las Vegas>Daq jIjaHpu'. SuDmeH vIjaHbe'. <Thanksgiving> jaj
lopmeH vIjaH.
KLBC: My trip to Las Vegas
I went to Las Vegas five days ago. I did not go to gamble. I went to
celebrate the day of Thanksgiving.
Don't misunderstand, I am not one to pick nits. But this one covers ground I
have a question on, involving the use of -be'. According to TKD, it "follows
the concept being negated." In the above example, he did not journey to Las
Vegas to gamble. Not that he did not *go*, but that he did not go *to
gamble*. Then, in this instance, isn't the purpose clause what is actually
being negated ? Should this be
' SuDbe'meH jIjaHta' ' (I went for the purpose of not gambling) or can you
negate a purpose clause, such as ' SuDmeHbe' jIjaHta' ' (I went not for the
purpose of gambling) ? Or would the whole sentence have to be recast?
- tuv'el
</XMP>
>>