tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 14:23:57 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: the scope of {-be'}



On 5 Nov 1999 03:35:16 -0000 "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> >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

That works fine if you use the localized interpretation. 
Meanwhile, if you use the globalized interpretation, {maH'e'} 
follows {-be'} and is therefore not negated, and you are 
EMPHASIZING that it is not negated.

charghwI'



Back to archive top level