tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 04 19:35:52 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: the scope of {-be'}
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:42:51 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>
>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.
Or just {maqarbe' maH'e'}: WE are not accurate (likely someone else is,
though).
~mark