tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 15 08:19:49 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 261
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 261
- Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 09:26:14 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Matt Treyvaud" at Oct 14, 95 06:10:40 pm
According to Matt Treyvaud:
...
> >
> > TKD page 172: "I wasn't there." {pa' jIHpu'be'}
> >
...
> 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.
The first thing to know is that {-be'} can be applied to any
suffix except Type 9. Given that, my spin would be:
pa' jIH = I am there.
pa' jIHbe' = I am not there.
pa' jIHbe'pu' = I have been not there. In other words, I have
not spent my entire life in that spot. The act is complete that
I have been some other place than there.
pa' jIHpu' = I have been there.
pa' jIHpu'be' = I have not been there. The act is not complete
that I have been there. If I say that to you and I am obviously
not there at the time, then obviously I have never been there.
> ?
>
> C /\ T
> F /()\ C ...CM is ATMA!
> C /____\ ...http://ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au/~cthulhu
> GANTA
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |