tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 14 18:06:55 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 261
> >'I
> >wasn't there' translated as {pa'Daq jIHpu'be'}. And isn't the be' in the
> >wrong spot? It says that it follows the concept being negated in the
> >'Verbs' section; I would have thought the concept being negated here is
> >'I am' rather than 'perfective'. What's going on here?
>
> TKD page 172: "I wasn't there." {pa' jIHpu'be'}
>
jIQaghpu' - pa', not pa'Daq. And after all that discussion about vogh,
too... :)
> Looks right to me. I don't want to say {pa' jIHbe'pu'} -- that's
> something like "I have *not-been* there." What I want to say is
> "I *have-not* been there." It's negating the completion of the act
> of being there. The way you are thinking about it, it would be
> the completion of the negation of being there. I would take it as
> a very strange way to say "I have been somewhere besides there."
>
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
But, if you are negating the completion of the act, wouldn't that mean
that the act is still ongoing? eg:
pa' jIH = I am there
pa' jIHpu' = I have finished being there.
pa' jIHpu'be' = I have not finished being there.
?
C /\ T
F /()\ C ...CM is ATMA!
C /____\ ...http://ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au/~cthulhu
GANTA