tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 09 19:32:38 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Rovers

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



jIghoHchoHlaw'mo' jItlhIj.  jIngach vIneHbe'; qech vIHub neH vIneH.  SoQwIj
vIjatlhta'DI' jImev.

ja' charghwI':
>In fact, the most controversial of the three is the most commonly used:
>{-be'}. The controversial aspect is that most people, including myself,
>think that it negates the syllable it follows (be that a suffix or a verb
>root).

Qochbe' HochHom -- *motlh* wot, wa' mojaq ghap tlhoch <-be'>.

>This makes for a nice, clear grammar without stupidly unnecessary
>ambiguity.

nap 'ej Huv.  'ach val'a'?  vulqangan Hol 'oHbe'qu' tlhIngan Hol'e'!  pab
nIt DaneHchugh, lojban DawaHlaH.  cha' Doch pIm 'oSlaHchugh wa' mu'tlhegh,
QIpnISbe'chu' pab.  wanI'vam lupoQlaw' bommey nIv.

>Others have argued, with rock-solid canon behind them that it negates
>EVERYTHING in a sentence that it follows. Not just the suffix in front of
>it. Not just ALL the suffixes in front of it. Not just the verb and all the
>suffixes in front of it. Everything, including any relative clauses,
>adverbials or whatever else that exists to the left of {-be'}.

vuDvetlh Dalach 'e' vIQub.  nungbogh Hoch tlhochnISqu'be'; tlhochlaHqu' neH.

DaH jImuch rIntaH.

SKI: Canon merely shows that {-be'} *can* negate more than the single
preceding verb or suffix, not that it always -- or even often -- does.

-- ghunchu'wI'





Back to archive top level