tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 30 12:02:38 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 12:00:39 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dfYuxcclPji2px+ZGvTO4XCUntZ9YsAP4cm51YzT26I=; b=gr9mTKnsjDKjKdd72reH0yAMljZMYOcwQFKBLwl8kKukkzTeBGy7dzntlppoKeQhdo NcOe221kzIxBB6Ku41HNkoC1ZCkHHdtEIT7j2K3fVt9dpYdC76nxt7DB3E+0CJyGECRz tDYv/PChFKI2So9Oad4BKD40XsN7f5ZC7avSY=
- 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=AzWfxDzCBwZMamY8uW/U0CE1sUz2pNko8TDtTJ3ciWaSwdKESE8HtM718MeRVC3U80 z8fy0O0BUETptr7wdNp+FZc3FDyoARrEBxVGju364XKBXltUpdZuVRKg2KWPGiKMHVjQ vZ/51XZR/AKkq4KhyRzOMHZXFuEgKsZbMa/V0=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:45, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote:
> From the observation that every time we might expect to see such a
> thing, we don't. A number of relevant examples have been posted here,
> including the simple {not toj tlhInganpu'}.
Fair enough, we can say that "negative concord" isn't required in
Klingon. This isn't the same, though, as saying that such a thing is
ungrammatical in Klingon as in English. One might still be able to
get two negatives, even if it isn't required.
> Did I err in using the name "Standard English" to refer to the strict
> grammatical rules taught in school? Or did my English teachers err in
> telling me that double negatives essentially cancel? For example, "I
> never want no pie" means pretty much the same thing as "I always want
> pie" (with a subtle difference in contextual implication). This is
> exactly how Klingon works: {not chab vIneHbe'} and {reH chab vIneH}
> carry the same basic meaning.
See previous email. In no dialect of English does "I never want no
pie" mean "I always want pie." "I never want no pie" = "I never want
any pie" in Standard English. Two negatives simply don't make an
affirmative (except as in Mark's previous example, which is a rather
special and marginal case).
>> in English, "not" negates an entire clause; in
>> Klingon, <-be'> negates only what immediately precedes it.
>
> That turns out to be too narrow a view, as a phrase from Power Klingon
> demonstrates nicely:
>
> {Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'}
> "Eat everything or you will die without honor."
I'm confused by this. The translation contains no negatives, but in
the Klingon, both clauses have a <-be'>...? "If you don't eat
everything, you will not die honorably?" I get the translation of the
second one, but not the first...
> You might be able to argue that the first half is talking about "not
> eating" everything, but the second half makes no sense if you restrict
> the scope of {-be'} to less than the entire clause.
>
> There's also {yIH vIHIjbe'} "I'm not transporting tribbles." It
> doesn't mean you are doing something to tribbles called "not
> transporting". It means you're not "transporting tribbles".
Then Okrand is wrong when he says that <-be'> negates what immediately
precedes it?