tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 30 08:44:08 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Rules for LaserQuest
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Rules for LaserQuest
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 11:44:04 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromMarian Schwartz on Fri, 28 Mar 1997 15:42:21 -0800 (PST))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 15:42:21 -0800 (PST)
>From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
>
>jIqetbe'.
> (I will not run.)<
>
>Yes, with no aspect suffixes future -is- a possibility, but when the futureish
>verb is negated, there's the useful suffix "-Qo'." When used with a
>non-imperative prefix. So:
>
>jIqetQo'.
> (I won't run)
>
>You can do that with all the other "will nots." --qoror
True; jIqetQo' is definitely the right way to go. But I just want to make
clear that it's not a matter of "futurish", but volition. "jIqetbe'" is no
less appropriate for future, but it lacks a certain aspect of
determination. It just means "I won't be running", that at the time in
question it will not be the case that I'm running. jIqetQo' indicates
determination, decision, active refusal and refraining from running: I
*will* not run (as opposed to "I shall not run", if we use will and shall
according to the more technical uses. "Will" is for simple future for
second and third person, and "shall" is for determination; the meanings are
reversed for first person). This is a promise someone is making: I will
not run, not just a prediction of the future. cf. Welsh "Ni redaf i" (I
will not run) vs. "Ni fyddaf i ddim yn rhedeg" (I won't be running/I shall
not run).
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMz6YUMppGeTJXWZ9AQE0KQMAhz5K9p4d4uBAIq3yky3dgrQjLc+k0C0+
9KvcTMw4OMLnm8AsWYtXVbEdpPbhZF7/gUGiSV9T3jqFd7+UuKFCOl9NTDI85rLK
XHSFJDin/sGeHT3dEbsboUzifxjR/kng
=XWx0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----