tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 03 22:44:39 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)
- From: JuDmoS@aol.com
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)
- Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 01:44:22 EST
In a message dated 99-11-30 19:41:28 EST, you write:
<< jatlh tuv'el:
> << KLBC: <Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj
> vaghHu' <Las Vegas>Daq jIjaHpu'. SuDmeH vIjaHbe'.
> <Thanksgiving> jaj lopmeH vIjaH.
> KLBC: My trip to Las Vegas
> I went to Las Vegas five days ago. I did not go
> to gamble. I went to celebrate the day of Thanksgiving.
> Don't misunderstand, I am not one to pick nits. But this one
> covers ground I have a question on, involving the use of -be'.
> According to TKD, it "follows the concept being negated." In
> the above example, he did not journey to Las Vegas to gamble.
> Not that he did not *go*, but that he did not go *to gamble*.
> Then, in this instance, isn't the purpose clause what is
> actually being negated ?
> Or would the whole sentence have to be recast?
I'm sorry it took so long to get back to this...but I decided to try a
recast. Would this work in this situation ?
mulengmoHta'bogh meqwI' 'oHbe' SuDtaH.