tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 15 14:46:44 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: -bogh and -wI'

It's not labeled KLBC, so I'm in on the discussion:

This is an old fight. I still feel quite confident that in the 
vast majority of cases, the clearest interpretation is that the 
suffix {-be'} negates the syllable immediately in front of it. 
Not the entire sentence up to that point. It is a focussed 
negative, attaching itself to the single suffix or root verb it 
directly follows.

There are a couple rare exceptions. I don't like them, but then, 
I'm almost certainly the "old stick-in-the-mud" Okrand refers to 
in our interview (whether that's what he intended or not), and 
so it is certainly the case that the language is loose enough 
that I'm not always right.

Meanwhile, I'm right a lot more often than I'm wrong, and this 
is one of those places I feel I have a pretty good handle on 
things. The whole reason {-be'} roves is so you can place it on 
the suffix or root verb that it specifically modifies. 
Otherwise, you could just place it anywhere. It wouldn't matter.

charghwI' 'utlh

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:21:44 -0800 (PST) "Lieven L. Litaer" 
<> wrote:

> >I put the <-be'> after <-nIS>, so it negates the <-nIS>. I think part of
> the
> >problem is that we really want the <-moH> to go right after the verb so we
> >can think of <lughmoH> as a single unit, but the language doesn't work
> Yes, I got rid of that thought some time ago already. It used to confuse me
> when I saw stuff like {Say'moH} "clean" and make it to *Say'moHnIS* ("need
> to clean"). But now that I got used to the correct form, the wrong one
> sounds as bad to me as... well, let's not give bad examples :-)
> >is fixed, the order in which the *meanings* of the suffixes apply is
> >flexible.
> Yes, one needs to stop thinking in english.
> >vIlughnISbe'moH
> >I do not need to make it correct / I do not need to correct it - perfect.
> That's what I understood.
> >vIlughnISmoHbe'
> >I do not cause it to need to be correct ??!?!? - this one doesn't make any
> >sense to me.
> Because you are able to think in klingon. In english, "not" is just added to
> the sentence:
>       like
> {jIlegh} - "I see"
> {jIleghbe'} - "I DO NOT see"
>       I get
> {vIlughnISmoH} - "I need to correct it"
> *vIlughnISmoHbe'* - "I DO NOT need to correct it"
> You see how I think? I'm probably still thinking too much the english way.
> chaq jIbuStaHvIS tlhInagn Hol neH vIlo'nIS.
> -rIn-
> Quvar muHwI'

Back to archive top level