tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 04 01:14:55 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: More on negation
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: More on negation
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 13:12:45 EDT
Okay. I'll admit it. I can't help myself. I'll probably get yelled at
for not leaving this for the grammarians. I've been good for a while now,
okay? Cut me some slack.
On Apr 4, 12:07pm, Carl Sadler wrote:
> Subject: More on negation
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Apr 1994, Mark Reed wrote:
>
> > \ a) tlhInganbe' jIH or
> > \ b) tlhIngan jIHbe'
...
> So what exactly are you saying? That you could correctly say "tlhIngan
> jIHbe'"? What you said does makes sense, and I would tend to agree that
> that would be the most logical choice of where to place be' so that you
> are not talking about a woman [which I had never thought of before].
On the audio tape, Conversational Klingon Marc Okrand explicitly
translates "I am not a Klingon" as {tlhIngan jIHbe'}. He advises you to yell
this as loudly as possible in moments of danger so the natives will realize
that you are not enjoying yourself and you would like some help.
> Let's take another example. I have always translated "I love you" as
> "bang SoH".
Pretty good, though you might want to get more specific and say "bangwI'
SoH" just so she/he will know WHOSE love you assert he or she is. Others have
proposed verbs that might fill in for the vague English "love", like {muSHa'}
(Krankor's favorite), or others like {parHa'qu'} or {SaHqu'}. Still, this use
of {bang} is quite appropriate, especially if you own up to {bangwI'}.
> So you could say "I don't love you" as " bang SoHbe' " ?
majQa'.
> [Or is that a bad translation for 'I love you' anyway? Seems like it
> could be, considering how well I am doing so far. :)] In any case,
> assuming those are okay translations, here are my guesses as to a few more
> related phrases, please tell me if I am right or wrong.
>
> 1) "I will never love you" not bang SoH
> 2) "I have never loved you" not bang SoHpu'
>
> Comments: 1) Since future tense must be taken in context [right?] and
> with the absence of -taH, then this much seems to make sense. 2) -pu'
> seems to be the only appropriate verb suffix to use here; I wouldn't
> think that -ta' would work, and -taH doesn't indicate the past as
> is necessary. This is assuming that the pronoun does indeed act as a
> verb [which it makes sense to think that it does, considering it is
> replacing the English verb 'to be'] and can therefore take verb suffixes.
>
> Comments please?
>
> -Carl
I like it. Again, I recommend {bangwI'}. Otherwise, your sentences sound
like "You will never be a lover," and "You have never been a lover,"
respectively. That could prove fatally insulting in the wrong company, in
that she might choose to simultaneously prove herself capable of being your
lover and killing you, especially if you have a smooth forehead and
insufficient body armor.
charghwI'