tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 04 20:19:51 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: adverb suffixes???
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:17:20 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>
>On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 22:41:46 -0600 Steven Boozer
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I suspect the main reason adverbials don't use suffixes to form their
>> opposites is that there are already separate, etyomologically unrelated,
>> adverbials. For example:
>>
>> {DaH} vs. {ngugh}
>
>or {tugh} or {qen}.
>
>For some of these, like {DaH} or {not}, negation would be either
>vague or surreal. It is not a concept that fits all things
>equally. I think some adverbials lack negative forms not because
>there are already other adverbs with the opposite meaning, but
>because a negative form would not be especially meaningful.
I remember before we got {qen}, we were pining for a word for "recently",
and were musing about {?tughHa'}. The thing is, though, that as you say,
the negation here is non-obvious. What is {?tughHa'}? Does it negate the
"in the future" part of "soon", making it synonymous with {qen}? Or does
it negate the "near in time" aspect, making it mean "far in the future"?
Hence we have {qen}. :) There are probably several other -Ha'-ed adverbs
that have that problem, or have an "obvious" meaning only in hindsight
(tough to notice, sometimes, since once you've thought of it, the hindsight
meaning is totally obvious and plain, and you can't tell it isn't obvious
to others).
>> And if you want to use {-be'} to negate an adverbial, try putting it on the
>> verb instead. To negate:
>>
>> nom *Okrand* paq chu' vIlaD.
>> I read Okrand's new book quickly.
>>
>> you could say:
>>
>> nom *Okrand* paq chu' vIlaDbe'.
>
>It would be interesting to study the scope of adverbials. Does
>this indeed work to say that you read the book but not quickly,
>or is it limited to say only that you did not read the book and
>the action of not reading it is something that you did quickly.
>Perhaps I had been reading it, but I was asked to stop, and I
>decided to quickly follow the suggestion, and so: nom *Okrand*
>paq chu' vIlaDbe'.
I have noted this already, in {Hoch DaSopbe'chugh, batlh bIHeghbe'}. Here,
the {-be'} seems to apply a bit larger. But that's recently been the
subject of a drawn-out debate already.
~mark