[102783] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Scope of Klingon Negation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lieven)
Thu Dec 3 03:44:13 2015
To: "tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org"
<tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
From: Lieven <levinius@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:43:56 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20151202232016.5be09a6bee57c32c2be5dc4c@comcast.net>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
jIghItlh:
>> chotIchmo' jIQeHbe'
ghItlh SapIr:
> 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)".
Indeed, you can read it like "I am not angry, and this happened because
you insulted me". The intended meaning was "I am not angry about the
fact that you insulted me."
I understand that this phrase is ambiguous, and even yor english
translation still is ambigous. You understood it perfectly anyway :-)
To make a clearer phrase, I was going to say what you wrote:
{chotIch 'ach jIQeHbe'.}
"You insulted me, but I'm not angry"
> 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?
So what you're asking for is (chotIchmo' jIQeH)be'.
--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
Grammarian of the KLI
http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
http://www.klingonwiki.net
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
