[109800] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Imperatives and {-be'}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Thu Jul 6 11:28:56 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:28:24 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cLM-t2oztSQfaz5EdK9ZkfCAjMUdqbfdVDb00os36-gXg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============7386537401937461514==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------7703C988238BFF51FB212B04"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------7703C988238BFF51FB212B04
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 7/6/2017 11:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> Apologising once more in advance for quoting boQwI', I need to bring
> this up, because there I read that..
>
> "Even though tkd says that {-be'} cannot be used with imperatives, it
> seems that this means only that it cannot be used to form negative
> imperatives. For example, a sentence such as {HIleghbe'moH} seems to
> be possible"
>
> I can't understand this. Isn't the {HIleghbe'moH} a negative
> imperative ? Doesn't it mean "make me not see !" ?
boQwI' is wrong. I don't know how the creator came to that conclusion.
It would be convenient if we could, but TKD prohibits it and I don't
think we've ever seen a counterexample.
Without that convenience, we have to say things like *jIleghbe' 'e'
yIqaSmoH*/cause me not seeing to occur!/ or be more direct: *mInwIj
tIvel*/cover my eyes!/ or *pa' yIHurghmoH*/make the room dark!/
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------7703C988238BFF51FB212B04
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/6/2017 11:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLM-t2oztSQfaz5EdK9ZkfCAjMUdqbfdVDb00os36-gXg@mail.gmail.com">Apologising
once more in advance for quoting boQwI', I need to bring this up,
because there I read that..
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">"Even though tkd says that {-be'} cannot be used
with imperatives, it seems that this means only that it cannot
be used to form negative imperatives. For example, a sentence
such as {HIleghbe'moH} seems to be possible"</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I can't understand this. Isn't the {HIleghbe'moH}
a negative imperative ? Doesn't it mean "make me not see !" ?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>boQwI' is wrong. I don't know how the creator came to that
conclusion. It would be convenient if we could, but TKD prohibits
it and I don't think we've ever seen a counterexample.</p>
<p>Without that convenience, we have to say things like <b>jIleghbe'
'e' yIqaSmoH</b><i> cause me not seeing to occur!</i> or be more
direct: <b>mInwIj tIvel</b><i> cover my eyes!</i> or <b>pa'
yIHurghmoH</b><i> make the room dark!</i><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------7703C988238BFF51FB212B04--
--===============7386537401937461514==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============7386537401937461514==--
