tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 18 06:14:23 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: -be' with -qu'

Scott Willis ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 1:12 AM
Subject: KLBC: -be' with -qu'


> what is the difference in meaning between 1) jItlhaQqu'be' and 2)
> jItlhaQbe'qu'?
>
> does #1 mean "i'm not very funny" and #2 mean "i'm very not funny (with
> emphatic not)"?

Exactly. Though the first, to me, is closer to "I'm not hilarious." I could
still be funny, I'm simply not overly so. As long as you get the same out of
it, you're on the right track. }}: )

> and in general how are the meanings of the verb suffixes changed by the
> differing positions of the rovers?  tkd doesn't address this very
thoroughly.

In Klingon, there are four "rovers": {-Ha'} "mis-" or "un-", {-Qo'} "don't!"
or "won't", {-be' } "not", and {-qu'} emphatic. Of these four, I only think
of two as "true rovers". The positions of {-Qo'} and {-Ha'} are prescribed:
{-Ha'} always comes immediately after the verb stem, before any type 1
suffixes, and {Qo'} is used between the type 8 suffix {-neS} and any type
9's. So that leaves us {-be'} and {-qu'}.

{-be'} will negate the notion of the element immediately before it:
{jItlhaQrupbe'} "I am not prepared to be funny."
{jItlhaQbe'rup} "I am prepared to be not funny."

{-qu'} will emphasize the notion of the element immediately before it:
{jItlhaQrupqu'} "I am READY to be funny."
{jItlhaQqu'rup} "I am prepared to be hilarious."

I still have a sneaking suspicion that I haven't answered your question,
though.
Is this the type of information you were looking for? Or did I miss the
mark?

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 701056.0

Back to archive top level