tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 30 12:07:14 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:02:36 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:51:16 -0500 (EST) david joslyn
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
While I really LIKE this idea -- it kinda works for me in my
mind -- I also know that it breaks a fundamental rule of
grammar. The rover {-be'} never follows any Type 9 verb suffix.
> > - tuv'el
>
> Hmmm...I'll attempt a recast:
>
> *Las Vegas* vIleng, 'ach jISuDbe'.
majQa'. bIjatlhchu'ta'.
> quljIb
>
> P.S. Is it just me, or is there a slight pun involved with {SuD} meaning
> "to gamble"?
So far as I can tell, it's only you. Care to explain?
charghwI'