tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 02 19:24:40 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: the scope of {-be'}

ja'pu' 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.

jIja':
>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.

ja' charghwI':
>We've been through this argument. Do we really expect to gain
>some sort of clarity from bringing it up again?
>
>Meanwhile, you've made a curious statement. You sound as if
>you'd expect me to say that it is arbitrary. I don't understand
>why.

Then I have misunderstood you completely.  I thought you just *did*
complain that it was arbitrary.  I have requoted the part of your
post that appears to be doing that.  If I'm reading it incorrectly,
I apologize for bringing up the argument, but it looks to me like
*you* are the one who brought it up.

I merely wanted to find out why you think the difference between the
words {qarchu'be'} and {qarbe'chu'} has anything to do with the scope
of action of {-be'}.

>Both models of how {-be'} works say the same thing.
>Negation is applied to {qar}. But what if it were
>{maqarbe'chu'}. Do you see a difference between "We are clearly
>(not accurate)" and "Clearly (not: we are accurate)"

Truly, I do not see a difference in meaning here.  They both seem
to say "We are not at all accurate" with complete confidence.  In
parenthesized notation, "clearly (not (we are accurate))" and
"clearly (we are (not accurate))" look very much the same.  I can
see a slight structural distinction between negating "we do it" and
asserting "we do not do it", but I think the meaning is the same.

>. Why mark
>{-chu'} as different from the rest of the statement? Why is
>{ma-} part of the negation and not {-chu'}? When you bundle it
>together, you gain the ambiguity of suggesting that perhaps
>someone else is accurate and we are not. It's the "we" part that
>could be the focus of the negation.

That pseudo-ambiguity is just as present in a simple sentence like
{maqar}.  Maybe it's the "we" part that's the focus of the assertion.
But it's more likely not to be, since we have explicit pronouns that
are generally used to provide that focus.

>If I say {rut maqarbe'chu'} is there no difference between:
>
>Clearly, {not: Sometimes we are accurate)
>and
>Sometimes we are clearly (not accurate).

Here I agree that there is a difference.  Including the adverbial in
the negation yields quite a different meaning from excluding it.  It
is same sort of difference seen between {qarbe'chu'} and {qarchu'be'},
with the problem being that there's no explicit grammar that indicates
which one is intended.

So what?  The most likely intent is that the rover is modifying only
the suffix it immediately follows, and the adverbial is not being
negated.  I'd go so far as to say that the presence of another suffix
after the rover is a very powerful indication that the {-be'} isn't
intended to negate the entire statement; if it were, it would come at
the end of the verb.  But sometimes the textbook-correct interpretation
doesn't make sense in context, and the interpretation having the larger
scope of negation *does* make sense.

I too think the grammatical sogginess that this implies is...distasteful.
However, I just don't see it as that big a deal.  I'm not troubled by
the presence of hard-to-interpret constructions in English grammar.  I
have no problem accepting that they exist in Klingon as well.  The only
time I'd be upset is if someone relied on them without giving other cues
to his intent.

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level