tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 05 20:31:57 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "be'be'" - double negation
- From: "Rohan Fenwick" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "be'be'" - double negation
- Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 01:31:54
> you were talking about a double negation(be'be').
> IŽd like to know why you want to use "be'be' "?
>I find it interesting how this thread evolved. The original question asked
>be' could follow more than one suffix, ie: muHoHbe'vIpbe'. I saw no
>with that. But somehow this got changed and people think I said it was ok
charghwI' suggested that there is always another way around such sentences
as this one - my example, <<muHoHbe'vIpbe'>>, "he is not afraid to not kill
me" (better: I am not afraid to leave you alive), could also be written
<<muHoHbe' 'e' chenvIpmoHbe'>> "He will not kill me. He is not afraid to do
that." It's wordier, but it conforms to canon better.
IMHO, even though charghwI' has strongly said that he'd rather not see it
used, I, personally, don't want to see it dismissed out of hand. There may
be situations in which such a construct may be useful, and maybe there's
some stylistic factor we don't know about yet. But I will be using it *only*
if we do get confirmation - all I was doing in that message was asking
whether or not any canon evidence existed to that effect. Like QAO, it just
isn't worth the argument if another way around exists. :)
BTW, I have also had a sentence containing <<not>> and the suffix <<-be'>>
vetoed; hence, the double negative <<-be'be'>>, one after the other,
probably isn't a good idea.
Qapla' 'ej Satlho'
"This kingdom thou shalt not take for thine own, wrongfully; for many others
have laboured here no less than thou." - John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, The
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com