tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 07 12:51:14 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: the scope of {-be'}
>Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:35:31 -0500
>From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>
>>>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.)
Then likely all this is a misunderstanding. I thought you were arguing
that {qarbe'chu'} and {qarchu'be'} were essentially the same in meaning.
~mark