tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 13:33:35 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: the scope of {-be'}



>>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.

jIja':
>>Both "(not-completely) accurate" and "not (completely accurate)" match
>>your explanation, at least the way I see it.  What do you see differently?

Your answer doesn't address this.  It talks about the obvious and
uncontroversial difference between {qarchu'be'} and {qarbe'chu'}.
I'm still wondering why you don't think the two interpretations of
{qarchu'be'} are "not in the least" the same thing.  (charghwI' does
not address it either, but apparently he wants to reject the "global"
applicability of {-be'} out of hand.)

ja' ~mark:
>Well, isn't that what we're seeing in {choHoHbe'vIp} vs. {choHoHvIpbe'}
>(TKD 4.3)?  In the first case, we have "You are: afraid-to (not kill me)"
>and in the second we have "You are: not-afraid-to (kill me)".  Notably, in
>{choHoHbe'vIp} we're talking about NOT killing me and in {choHoHvIpbe'}
>we're talking about killing me (but not being afraid of it).  So too, I'm
>saying that {maqarbe'chu'} is talking about NOT being accurate (and being
>perfect in that non-accuracy) as opposed to {maqarchu'be'} which talks
>about being accurate (but being imperfect in that accuracy).  Near as I can
>tell this is *exactly* parallel to the example in TKD.

You're talking about the different meanings of two different words with
{-be'} in different places, and you're saying things that I agree with
completely.  But why did you go "Huh???" when I gave two interpretations
of the single sentence {qarchu'be'} to begin with?  It's only one word,
and its {-be'} doesn't move around even if you look at it more than once.

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh




Back to archive top level