tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 30 10:42:14 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Double negatives
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Double negatives
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:39:49 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=zIYFnIUkvh5mU6Feij9wjMc7MQ953xdOGrNA5fnlsiM=; b=t+CwMV2EolVV754hu+P0DhTLcAjtHUenYnKawkTKtwVhPBIsqhK/8nb6QOI6coKIGZ gpaTuNfSZrPgSbRgycLudDOrPkWyR4hDwTG+69X2A9zHvr3CjLP4inpmjak3gEWRlogz bgn75kJtgZ2HbeTLNMw6tfP2b5oFFTnrR8dYg=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=Ublnjs6qzBsFvb8HnND0c8WVIXZAZg7AMyylHKGMQRen/ha7xWwuj/TPIA1d9eu4Ru gB8TTvrFvRw4RUHb9ScC1CJztMaflhV0VBzl2idDiXNJRk8i6NfFL+4jqsDNO/mSVbon TgJthEdK9659USp9fxe3t2t/N7QpV5q0XC3lw=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 06:29, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote:
> Klingon does not employ "negative concord" the way some languages do.
Whence does this conclusion come?
> Double negatives in Klingon appear to act the way they do in Standard
> English, with one negating the other and yielding an affirmative
> meaning.
This doesn't happen in Standard English, and it is stupid to say so.
Language is not math, and two negatives do not make a positive, and
saying so borders on various kinds of "-ists."
There is, further, reason to believe that we might see differences in
English in Klingon: in English, "not" negates an entire clause; in
Klingon, <-be'> negates only what immediately precedes it. So, in
Klingon, a clause with a negative <-be'> and, say, a <not>, don't
really have two negatives with the same scope.
I'm not saying this is okay in Klingon, just that it might be. And
that two negatives equal a positive is stupid.