tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 04 18:30:29 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: the scope of {-be'}
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: the scope of {-be'}
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 20:24:54 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <l03020901b4420ee413b7@[216.206.111.196]> (message from AlanAnderson on Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:35:32 -0500)<[email protected]><l03020901b4420ee413b7@[216.206.111.196]>
jIja'pu':
>Furthermore, {qarchu'be'} means essentially the same thing whether you
>see it as "(not-completely) accurate" or "not (completely accurate)".
ja' ~mark:
>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.
Both "(not-completely) accurate" and "not (completely accurate)" match
your explanation, at least the way I see it. What do you see differently?
>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.
You lost me completely here. Not even the most vocal supporter of the
global applicability of {-be'} has said it could be applied like that.
Where did you see anyone propose that {qarchu'be'} might be interpreted
out of order that way? {-be'} *is* a rover, and if that's the way you
want it to be read, that's the way you should write it: {qarbe'chu'}.
>That's the whole point of rovers.
Well, yes. I am obviously not speechless, but I am extremely surprised
at what you're saying. I greatly suspect something got misread badly by
one or both of us.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh