tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 29 19:52:09 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: RE: vIjeylu'be'

On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:44:18 -0400 TPO <> wrote:

> >> Now, does this mean "Not everybody refuses"?
> >
> >Not even close. Realise that there is no such thing as a 
> >negative suffix for nouns. {HochHa'} is meaningless. {Hoch'a'} 
> >means "The Great Everyone" or "The Specially Signficant 
> >Everything". {pagh luQo'} means "They refuse nothing."}
> >
> >What you have chosen to say is actually a little tricky. I'd 
> >probably cast it something like:
> >
> >Qo' 'op nuv 'ach Qo'be' Hoch.
> >
> >"Some people refuse, but everyone does not refuse." I can't 
> >immediately think of a shorter, clear way to say that.
> That sound like the second line contradicts the first.

I considered that possibility, but did not consider that to be 
necessarily the case, given the long, drawn out argument I lost 
where there are apparently cases backed up by canon where Okrand 
has used a negation to negate something larger than the 
immediately preceeding syllable. I thought that given the 
combination in one sentence, it would still be understood.

> KGT gives us HochHom - most
> Qo' 'op nuv. Qo'be' HochHom
But now, you are modifying the meaning of the original. You are 
saying, "Some people refuse. Most do not refuse." I see that as 
a quite different statement than "Not everybody refuses." You 
are assuming a majority refuses. That may be the case, but we'd 
have to ask the person what their intent was for the original 

Perhaps we should get simpler:

Ouch. I just realized that all this time, we've been using an 
exclammation as if it were a verb.

I obviously need to catch up on my sleep.

lajQo' vay'.


> DloraH

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level