[109801] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' webpage
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Thu Jul 6 11:38:12 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 11:37:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cKtmA=UVobNTOcPod+aMtydP=fQQCuRMT757M8Tujhvkw@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.
--===============4545046689752524026==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------17ECD363C35E63AB1DDE7D58"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------17ECD363C35E63AB1DDE7D58
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 7/6/2017 11:27 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> SuStel:
> > *pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj meyrI' SoH*
> /if you are not there then you are a square/
> /
> /
> The placement of {-be'} confuses me. If we choose to place it after
> the {-taH} then doesn't the meaning become "If you aren't there
> continuously" ?/
> /
>
> Perhaps this is indeed the intented meaning, the speaker trying to say
> "if you aren't continuously there, then..".
>
> But wouldn't you accept, as a more literal way of saying "If you
> aren't there.." the {pa' SoHbe'taHchugh..} ?
>
> The only reasoning I see for placing the {-be'} after the {-taH}, is
> if we consider (because of the {pa'}) the {SoHtaH} as an "unable to be
> separated pair of words", thus leaving as an only option the placement
> of the {-be'} after it.
Since we've gotten some examples of it, I believe *-be'* doesn't
necessarily negate only the single, immediately preceding element, but
it can refer to the entire preceding concept, especially for suffixes
that aren't typically negated. So what I said was meant as
*[SoHtaH]be'chugh* instead of *SoH[taH]be'chugh.*
A canonical example of this is from /Power Klingon:/ *Hoch DaSopbe'chugh
batlh bIHeghbe'*/if you don't eat everything you will die without
honor./ Clearly, *-be'* here is referring to the entire phrase *batlh
bIHegh* and not just the *Hegh.*
Another example from /Conversational //Klingon/ is *vIta'pu'be'*/I
didn't do it./ This doesn't mean I did it in a non-perfective way; the
entire verb before the *-be'* is being negated as a unit.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------17ECD363C35E63AB1DDE7D58
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<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 11:27 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cKtmA=UVobNTOcPod+aMtydP=fQQCuRMT757M8Tujhvkw@mail.gmail.com">SuStel:
<div dir="auto">> <b
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">pa'
SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj meyrI' SoH</b></div>
<i style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">if you are
not there then you are a square</i>
<div dir="auto"><i
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><br>
</i></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">The placement
of {-be'} confuses me. If we choose to place it after the
{-taH} then doesn't the meaning become "If you aren't there
continuously" ?</span><i
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px"><br>
</i></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif">Perhaps this is indeed the
intented meaning, the speaker trying to say "if you aren't
continuously there, then..".</font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif">But wouldn't you accept,
as a more literal way of saying "If you aren't there.." the
{pa' SoHbe'taHchugh..} ?</font></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">The only
reasoning I see for placing the {-be'} after the {-taH}, is if
we consider (because of the {pa'}) the {SoHtaH} as an "unable
to be separated pair of words", thus leaving as an only option
the placement of the {-be'} after it.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<p>Since we've gotten some examples of it, I believe <b>-be'</b>
doesn't necessarily negate only the single, immediately preceding
element, but it can refer to the entire preceding concept,
especially for suffixes that aren't typically negated. So what I
said was meant as <b>[SoHtaH]be'chugh</b> instead of <b>SoH[taH]be'chugh.</b></p>
<p>A canonical example of this is from <i>Power Klingon:</i> <b>Hoch
DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'</b><i> if you don't eat everything
you will die without honor.</i> Clearly, <b>-be'</b> here is
referring to the entire phrase <b>batlh bIHegh</b> and not just
the <b>Hegh.</b></p>
<p>Another example from <i>Conversational </i><i>Klingon</i> is <b>vIta'pu'be'</b><i>
I didn't do it.</i> This doesn't mean I did it in a
non-perfective way; the entire verb before the <b>-be'</b> is
being negated as a unit.<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>
--------------17ECD363C35E63AB1DDE7D58--
--===============4545046689752524026==
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
--===============4545046689752524026==--
