tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 30 16:41:25 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Nature of -be' (was <.Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj)
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:42:38 -0700
jatlh tuv'el:
> << KLBC: <Las Vegas>Daq lengwIj
>
> vaghHu' <Las Vegas>Daq jIjaHpu'. SuDmeH vIjaHbe'.
> <Thanksgiving> jaj lopmeH vIjaH.
>
> 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.
jang juDmoS:
>
> 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 ?
You're not picking nits; you're asking a thoughtful question, and honestly
looking for insight. Don't get caught doing that in school {{;-)>
It could be, but it could just as easily be just the verb. Consider
<jIghungmeH, chIch jISopbe'> - "In order to be hungry, I intentionally did
not eat".
> Should this be ' SuDbe'meH jIjaHta' ' (I went for the purpose
> of not gambling)
That works. Whether it express the idea tuv'el was going for is probably up
to tuv'el.
> or can you negate a purpose clause, such as
> ' SuDmeHbe' jIjaHta' ' (I went not for the purpose
> of gambling) ?
Rovers cannot be placed after type 9 suffixes, so this does not work. I kind
of wish it did . . .
> Or would the whole sentence have to be recast?
ghaytan.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm