[102777] in tlhIngan-Hol
[Tlhingan-hol] Scope of Klingon Negation (was: Re: Religious
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (kechpaja)
Wed Dec 2 23:20:32 2015
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 23:20:16 -0500
From: kechpaja <kechpaja@comcast.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <565F5E3D.7080905@gmx.de>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 22:10:21 +0100
Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
<snip>
> chotIchmo' jIQeHbe'
It took me a while to interpret this sentence, because I kept wanting to read it as "Because you insulted me, I am not angry", when what Lieven was trying to say (AFAICT) was "I am not angry because you insulted me", i.e. "It is false that (I am angry because you insulted me)".
Do we have any canonical examples in which the {be'} suffix's meaning can scope over both the verb to which it is attached, and a clause subordinated by a type 9 suffix?
If we don't have such canonical examples, is there a canonical construction using another type 9 suffix, or would we just need to say {chotIch, 'ach jIQeHbe'}?
-SapIr
--
kechpaja <kechpaja@comcast.net>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
