tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 22 21:21:54 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Research question concerning negation
- From: "Rohan Fenwick" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Research question concerning negation
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 01:20:49
jatlh Andrew:
>What is the deal with -be'? The problem, if there is one, is very subtle.
>It's as expressive as its natural language counterparts, but there's a lot
>that hasn't been explained (decided) about it yet. For instance, what do
>you
>do when negating nouns?
>(1) Soj Sambe' puq
> FOOD FIND-NOT CHILD
> "A/the child did not find any/the food."
>Note the ambiguity. It's impossible to tell the implication of the
>negation,
>i.e. where the focus lies. It could be any of the following three
>implications:
>(1a) A/The child did not find any/the food. He went hungry instead.
>(1b) A/The child did not find any/the food. She found (the) X >instead.
>(1c) A/The child did not find any/the food. X found it instead.
Although by no means an expert, I'll have a go at this, because I think I
may have an answer.
In written English, we *can* have the same problem, although meaning is
usually understood from context. However, we have an advantage in focusing
sentences: we have the articles a/an/the/some to help us, as well as word
stress.
The English - with appropriate articles and stress - can become:
1a) The child did not find any food (normal statement stress)
1b) The child did not find the FOOD (stress on "food", and definite article:
THE food)
1c) The CHILD did not find the food (stress on "child")
>In (1a) it is the verb "Sam" that is being negated; in (1b) it is the noun
>"Soj"; and in (1c) it is the noun "puq". The appropriate implication might
>come from context. But since Klingon has a perfectly good focus marker, and
>we Klingon speakers have used it in the past to alleviate ambiguity (cf.
>-bogh), it seems natural here.
I agree completely.
>If -'e' is understood as focus marker (as it usually is except in copular
>constructions) then its use in each of (2a, 2b, 2c) would limit the
implication to (1a, 1b, 1c) resp.
>(2a) Soj Sambe' puq. OR Soj Samqu'be' puq.
>(2b) Soj'e' Sambe' puq.
>(2c) Soj Sambe' puq'e'.
Following from what I said before about stress, and your statement about the
usage of -'e', I think this is probably the best way to do it.
>This is not a very common use of -'e', but it seems natural to me. Of
>course
>since it's not canon, other people may want to debate it endlessly. (I
>don't!) I am merely expressing a perceived ambiguity of -be' and a possible
>alleviation of that ambiguity.
I, for one, think your use of -'e' here is excellent. It's easy to
understand, and clear as well. It was my understanding that this very thing
was the purpose of -'e' - to clarify sentences such as this in the absence
of articles.
Qapla' 'ej Satlho'
ro'Han
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp