Re: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)

[JuDmoS@aol.com]

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.
 
 jang juDmoS:
 >  
 > 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? 
 
 ghaytan.
 
 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.

juDmoS