tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 30 07:52:12 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)
- From: david joslyn <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:51:16 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
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"?