tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 16 09:17:44 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "you will die without honor"
- From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "you will die without honor"
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:21:42 -0400
ghItlh ghunchu'wI', charghwI':
>>> But remember the holiday proverb from PK:
>>> {Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'}
>>> "Eat everything or you will die without honor."
>>
>>I'm not sure that the English translation is not simply
?>>intentionally inaccurate in order to span the customs of those
>>it is translated for. I think Klingon Moms are actually saying,
>>"If you don't eat everything, you won't die honorably." Hegh
>>Hoch net Sov. batlh Heghlu' pagh batlhHa' Heghlu'. batlh
>>Heghbe'lu'chugh vaj batlhHa' Heghlu'ba'.
>
>
>I don't buy it. According to your earlier objection, {batlh bIHeghbe'}
>would have to imply that you don't die, and your "not dying" is done
>honorably. The apparently correct interpretation, however, is that
>"dying with honor" is the thing that is not happening. The {-be'} is
>negating the entire phrase *including the adverbial element*.
-be' follows the concept being negated, according to TKD p. 46. Then there
is an example showing how what is negated is different when the rover's
position is changed.
Armed with this knowledge, batlh bIHegh means "You honorably die." and
batlh bIHeghbe' would get the reading "You, honorably, do not die."
bIHeghbe' means You do not die! batlh cannot change this with the rules we
have. wej and not could (but seem meaningless when used with a negating
suffix like 'be- or -Qo'), but batlh cannot.
I write this example off as a non-grammatical unique little variant
construction. I cannot accept changing the basic rules governing
interpretation of verb suffixes based on one canonic example which shows
variation.
>>I do not agree that this example implies any general rule that
>>such a negative can be applied to any part of the sentence.
maQochbe', charghwI'
Qermaq