tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 30 13:18:04 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 13:16:14 -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=M08pmcf8qb3exUsb6U/BpaUe509C5tBqwyzL3aVpMMA=; b=NtpKwGObTXz3ZMfSsSnBEHJugjKNsgpLBEsjx9R2db7OZWzwpY41HYeEOalGPpRSrb CXRW7Z5TRcRBBOQQTH0hdxPxczU346UUhCJAnhvCbM84Om3mAaj2m5bqgR7pPJBTpijT /KXIB42hU8vl0PFzHbccPFJ64Nujrz8z3eKOk=
- 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=SxWElVMfFXENhQON3HS33gcIDSPKFg8zBqF3k27YinoKk7KQcjqQfyCB42xNNb+BiA gsl5Gm1GbnBhwK/6zzv+ZM6HO0v3i0Zhxt+IU5VBKkHawdnG0uyl5rac67XJT6AuuhrR g3p4YFutbFWnwe+9n8KZbKCusg1swsDecJqiw=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:55, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Okrand always translates colloquially, not literally, unless he
> explicitly goes out of his way to tell you the literal translation. He
> explains this in the introduction to TKD.
>
> In this case, he has shown a tendency to translate "<imperative> or
> <alternative>" as {X-chugh Y}, where X and Y are clauses.
>
> bIDIlbe'chugh vaj bIHegh.
> Pay or die. (CK)
> "If you do not pay, then you die."
>
> bIje'be'chugh vaj bIHegh.
> Buy or die. (PK, TKW)
> "If you do not buy, then you die."
>
> Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'.
> Eat everything or you will die without honor. (PK)
> "If you do not eat everything, you do not die honorably."
Ah, that makes perfect sense. Not sure why I wasn't following the logic.
> That last one contains the {-be'} that negates more than just its
> preceding element that I mentioned before. We subsequently learned about
> putting {-Ha'} on adverbials, which would lead us to expect {batlhHa'
> bIHegh} "you die dishonorably," but that's not the proverb.
Well, <-be'> negating verb + object isn't that weird. One might say
that, when <-be'> immediately follows the verb root, it negates the
predicate (verb + object); elsewhere, it negates just what precedes
it. I'm tempted to ask for examples of <-be'>, but I reckon that's a
giant list, so I'll just look through the stuff I have.
Chris