tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 01 16:22:50 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: the scope of {-be'}

jatlh charghwI':
> I'm no genius. I'm an average guy. Yet here I stand, seeing
> something so blatant that so many others keep telling me doesn't
> exist. "The empiror is not nude. Nope. Great looking suit, that.
> It really brings out the color of his eyes, don't you think?"


I must admit I can't see why this isn't one of those "kinda-sorta" things we
get in languages all the time.  Generally, the rule in Klingon is that the
{-be'} negates only the element immediately preceding it, but there are
times when its scope enlarges.  The choice of scope is up to the speaker,
not the grammar.  Most speakers are not very concerned with the scope of
their negations, and will be relaxed with them.  Ambiguous?  Certainly.
Detrimental?  Depends on how much clarity of speech you require at any given
moment.  If you need more, you'll use more.

I also don't see why this is a right-or-wrong situations.  "Can the scope of
{-be'} be extended is a slightly different question than "Does the scope of
{-be'} become extended."  Obviously, it does, at least the number of times
we've seen it do so.  Does that make the "immediately preceding" rule wrong?
Not necessarily.  It's still the rule, but gets broken from time to time.

"'I' before 'e,' except after 'c,' or when rhyming with 'neighbor' or
'weigh,' or . . . ."


SuStel
Stardate 99835.8


P.S.: Consider also those moments in conversation where you've just said
something, and even as you're speaking you realize you've got to negate
something you've just said.  You'll be very tempted to stick {-be'} at the
end of the sentence!  Mentally, I think people alter scope as they see fit,
when they need to.

Back to archive top level