tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 24 23:27:52 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: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:32:10 -0400
ghItlh ghunchu'wI':
>TKD Appendix: {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaHbe'} "I don't speak Klingon."
>The concept being negated is "can speak Klingon". I'm pretty sure this is
>not saying anything about "cannot-speaking" the Klingon language -- which
>would perhaps involve being compelled to be quiet when Klingon is involved?
Here -be' negates what comes directly before it - the ability to perform the
verb. -be' is behaving as I would expect it. The verb acts on the object, so
sure, we must consider it in the translation. But tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhlaH
doesn't mean "I am able to speak" "the Klingon language". It means "I am
able to speak the Klingon language". The object is similarly necessary to
understand the verb when we use -be'. "I am unable to speak the Klingon
language." The object is not what be' is modifying, though.
>Power Klingon: {Qo'noSDaq vay' vISovbe'} "I don't know anyone on
>Kronos."
>This is clearly negating the concept "know someone on Kronos". It doesn't
>have anything to do with "not-knowing" someone. Perhaps it is ambiguous,
>but the meaning carried by {-be'} can obviously be applied to the
*entirety*
>of what it follows, not just the immediately preceding morpheme.
"I do not know someone on Qo'noS." Well, vay' vISovba', 'ach Qo'noSDaq vay'
vISovbe'. -be' here is simply negating the verb. Yes, the Qo'noSDaq being
part of the sentence tempers the use of the suffix, but it still merely
modifies the syllable just before.
In neither of these cases must we assume the -be' negates anything other
than the immediately preceding syllable. They both work out as similar, if
not identical, to textbook -be' examples.
Both of these are very different from Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe' -
here -be' seems to modify the adverbial. I would have expected *Hoch
DaSopbe'chugh batlhHa' bIHegh*. I would translate the original sentence as
"If you don't eat everything you will, honorably, not die" and be entirely
correct. So either this construction is ambiguous, and a more accurate
statement should be made, or this is an old construction obeying ancient
rules. That seems likely.
Since it's canon, we can't write it off. So I await the backfit... Till
then, I won't use -be' to modify an adverbial which modifies the sentence in
which -be' appears.
Qermaq