tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 31 12:11:35 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Short and Easy [James]
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Short and Easy [James]
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 12:11:11 -0800
At 18:23 97-12-21 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
}On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 02:58:11 -0800 (PST) James Coupe
}<[email protected]> wrote:
}
}> In article <[email protected]>, Qov
}> <[email protected]> writes
}> >This is my peeve of the week, so I want everyone to get it before I am
}> >through. Don't look at the word "won't" and automatically sub in {-Qo'}.
}> >Ask yourself: is this sentence stating that the subject refuses to perform
}> >this action, or simply stating that the ubject isn't going to perform it in
}> >the future? {-Qo'} is for refusal and {-be'} is for statement of fact or
}> >prediction.
}>
}> Well, my Klingon isn't good enough to translate this just yet but:
}>
}> If I had just had a very bad experience which I didn't want to repeat, I
}> could say "I won't do that again." Because it isn't a refusal and is a
}> prediction for the future, I'd use *-be'*, right?
}
}Okay, please do not be confused by a difference of opinion
}between Qov and myself, but since I'm substituting for her, *I*
}get to give MY advice, okay?
}
}I think Qov has gone a little overboard on this one. She has an
}excellent point, but carries it a bit too far.
It's precisely because much of the time you can argue for {-Qo'} or {-be'}
that I wanted to make sure that people understood the distinction. For a
week instead of leaving any instance of {-Qo'} that might have been a
mistaken future tense but that worked anyway, I pounced on every one.
Next week we will stamp out similar abuse of type-2 suffixes. :)
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian