tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 09 19:32:38 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Rovers
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'