tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 01 12:26:29 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: Double negatives

Steven Boozer (sboozer@uchicago.edu)



ghunchu'wI':
>> My answer to Blake should be uncontroversial: Klingon as we see it
>> used does not "do" double negatives. Whether or not it might be able
>> to in some hypothetical dialect is unimportant to the fact that it
>> *doesn't* in the dialect we study.

Although it's not quite what Blake had in mind, there is one type of double negative which I don't believe has been mentioned so far:  whenever one of the "negative verbs" - {Qoch} "disagree", {par} "dislike", {tung} "discourage", {Dach} "not pay attentive, be distracted", etc. - is used with a negative suffix:

  Qochbe'  "not disagree
  parbe'   "not dislike"
  tungbe'  "not discourage"
  Dachbe'  "not not pay attentive, not be distracted"

st.k 11/97:  The Rover {-be'} comes right after whatever it is negating. Both {Qochbe'nIS} "he/she/they need to not disagree" (that is, "he/she/they need to agree") and {QochnISbe'} "he/she/they do not need to disagree" are acceptable Klingon formations... 

Note that some of these verbs form their opposites with {-be'} (e.g. {Qochbe'} "agree") and some with {-Ha'} (e.g. {parHa'} "like", {tungHa'} "encourage").  Still others have completely unrelated antonyms.  

In the second case you are able to contrast {parbe'} "not dislike" with {parHa'be'} "not like".  


 
-- 
Voragh                          
Canon Master of the Klingons






Back to archive top level