tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 03 12:44:43 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: the scope of {-be'}
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: the scope of {-be'}
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:42:51 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:32:44 CST Marc Ruehlaender
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> talking about the scope of {-be'} in {maqarbe'chu'},
> charghwI' said (among many other things):
> > But there is no way to apply negation to a pronoun unless it is
> > being treated as a verb. To use that in this kind of
> > construction, we have to go to the perversity of:
> >
> > qarwI'pu' maHbe'.
> >
> > Yuck.
> >
>
> first of all, although _languages_ are not logical at all,
> to me (not(we are accurate)) comes out to be the same as
> (we are (not accurate)); ((not we) are accurate) covers a
> subset of the former, namely that subset where there is
> someone else who _is_ accurate. Both others _include_ the
> cases where there is _noone_ who is accurate.
>
> and in the languages I know, this latter case always has to
> be described in some convoluted way:
>
> it's not us who are accurate
Others are more accurate.
latlhpu' qar law' maH qar puS.
> c'est pas nous qui sommes accurats(sp?)
> nicht wir sind genau
>
> vs
>
> we are not accurate
> nous ne sommes pas accurats
> wir sind nicht genau
>
> so, it's not surprising that Klingon has to strain as well
> to convey that meaning.
My whole point is that if you accept the globalized model of how
{-be'} works, you don't have to strain for this meaning. It's
simply one of the ambiguous meanings of the word {maqarbe'chu'}.
> and in general, I have the feeling that both charghwI' and
> ghunchu'wI' agree on the core matter; it's just that their
> "pain threshold" is somewhat different...
Interesting perspective.
> Marc Ruehlaender
> aka HomDoq
> [email protected]
charghwI'