tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 25 23:59:59 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Research question concerning negation
- From: "Will Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Research question concerning negation
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:59:02 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
It occurs to me that Daniella would do well to spend some time studying
{-Ha'} if she wants to see Klingon negation get interesting. Since it
indicates two different kinds of negation, either reversing the action of a
verb {QeyHa'}, or indicating that the action is done badly {yajHa'}. Compare
each to the simple negation of {-be'} and there is a definite difference
between {QeyHa'} and {Qeybe'} ("loose" vs. "not tight") and between {yajHa'}
and {yajbe'} ("misunderstand" vs. "not understand").
The other sticky point about negation is the argument I lost about how
{-be'} should always negate only the syllable immediately preceeding it.
Most of the time, this is true, but at least once in canon Okrand used it to
negate EVERYTHING in the sentence before the {-be'}, and there is nothing in
the description of {-be'} in TKD that limits the scope of how much of the
sentence before {-be'} is affected by it.
Sustel argued quite successfully about this canon example I don't remember
now. Others joined in. I remember that Okrand was basically negating the
adverb, though this example occurred before he established that we could use
{-Ha'} on adverbs, so it might well be that the earlier example was merely a
bad attempt to accomplish what adding {-Ha'} to the adverb does more
clearly. Whatever the case, it does open the door to a lot of very messy use
of negation in Klingon.
But such is life. Okrand doesn't want it to be pristine.
charghwI'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 2:03 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Research question concerning negation
>
>
> >While I can see your point, I don't think this really qualifies as
> >ambiguity. Remove the negation and you get exactly the same need
> for context
> >to fully understand the statement. {Soj Sam puq.} What is the
> question that
>
> That is a very good point, which I hadn't thought about. Maybe -'e' (if it
> is focus) would come to the rescue without negation as well. Daniela had
> asked about negation, and I immediately thought of her native
> German, where
> the "nicht" can go practically anywhere in the sentence, negating nouns,
> adverbs, or anything else, and I wondered how Klingon would handle that.
> Again, the so-versatile-as-to-be-nearly-useless -'e' to the rescue. :)
>
> --Andrew Strader
> "How are you gentlemen? All your base are belong to us."
> http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~strader
>
>