tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 30 07:52:12 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)



On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 [email protected] wrote:

>  KLBC: My trip to Las Vegas
>  
>  I went to Las Vegas five days ago.  I did not go to gamble.  I went to
>  celebrate the day of Thanksgiving.  
>  
> Don't misunderstand, I am not one to pick nits. But this one covers ground I 
> have a question on, involving the use of -be'. According to TKD, it "follows 
> the concept being negated." In the above example, he did not journey to Las 
> Vegas to gamble. Not that he did not *go*, but that he did not go *to 
> gamble*. Then, in this instance, isn't the purpose clause what is actually 
> being negated ? Should this be 
> ' SuDbe'meH jIjaHta' ' (I went for the purpose of not gambling) or can you 
> negate a purpose clause, such as ' SuDmeHbe' jIjaHta' ' (I went not for the 
> purpose of gambling) ? Or would the whole sentence have to be recast? 
>  
>  
>  - tuv'el

Hmmm...I'll attempt a recast:

*Las Vegas* vIleng, 'ach jISuDbe'.

quljIb

P.S. Is it just me, or is there a slight pun involved with {SuD} meaning
"to gamble"?

 




Back to archive top level