tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 02 06:57:21 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: the scope of {-be'}
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: the scope of {-be'}
- Date: 2 Nov 1999 14:50:12 -0000
- In-reply-to: <l03020901b4420ee413b7@[216.206.111.196]> (message from AlanAnderson on Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:35:32 -0500)
- References: <[email protected]> <l03020901b4420ee413b7@[216.206.111.196]>
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:35:32 -0500
>From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>
>ja' charghwI':
>>> Anyone who says {qarchu'be'} to mean
>>> {qarbe'chu'} is making a mistake.
>>
>>This is exactly why I always hated the argument that we can
>>globalize what {-be'} negates. Since {-be'} obviously CAN apply
>>to the single affix or root verb it immediately follows, if it
>>also can negate everything that preceeds it, how can we tell the
>>difference? And since it is truely mobile, the required ordering
>>of other affixes make it arbitrary which affixes are being
>>negated and which ones aren't.
>
>I don't understand this complaint at all. In the example just given,
>there's no way you can argue that {qarbe'chu'} is at all arbitrary.
>Furthermore, {qarchu'be'} means essentially the same thing whether you
>see it as "(not-completely) accurate" or "not (completely accurate)".
Huh??? Not in the least! When -be' modifies the -chu', it means the
"completely"ness is not so: it is not completely accurate. That is, it
might be a little accurate, but not completely so. When the -be' modifies
the qar, and THAT in turn is modified by -chu', we have that the accuracy
is not so, it is not accurate, and THAT is completely so: it is completely
non-accurate, totally not accurate at all. That's the whole point of
rovers.
~mark