tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 01 12:26:29 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Double negatives
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