[109802] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' webpage
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mayqel qunenoS)
Thu Jul 6 11:46:53 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <03bb80b1-1721-7419-e717-b2956feabc4c@trimboli.name>
From: mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 18:46:44 +0300
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============3042029891003841587==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1cfe961adb410553a806c7"
--94eb2c1cfe961adb410553a806c7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
maj.
Now, I understand your reasons for the specific placement of {-be'}.
However let me ask you..
If instead of {SoHtaHbe'chugh} we wrote {SoHbe'taHchugh}, and if instead of
{vIta'pu'be'} we wrote {vIta'be'pu'}..
1. Would you accept these choices as equally correct ?
2. Meaning-wise, would you find that they are any different ?
qunnoq
On 6 Jul 2017 6:38 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
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.
--
SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--94eb2c1cfe961adb410553a806c7
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto">maj.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Now, I =
understand your reasons for the specific placement of {-be'}. However l=
et me ask you..</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">If inste=
ad of {SoHtaHbe'chugh} we wrote {SoHbe'taHchugh}, and if instead of=
{vIta'pu'be'} we wrote {vIta'be'pu'}..</div><div d=
ir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">1. Would you accept these choices a=
s equally correct ?</div><div dir=3D"auto">2. Meaning-wise, would you find =
that they are any different ?</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"=
auto">qunnoq</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On 6 Jul 2017 6:38 pm, "SuStel" <<a href=3D"=
mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br type=3D=
"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
=20
=20
=20
<div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div class=3D"quoted-text">
<div class=3D"m_-692706791301221770moz-cite-prefix">On 7/6/2017 11:27 A=
M, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">SuStel:
<div dir=3D"auto">>=C2=A0<b style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-s=
ize:13.696px">pa'
SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj meyrI' SoH</b></div>
<i style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">if you are
not there then you are a square</i>
<div dir=3D"auto"><i style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696=
px"><br>
</i></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif">The placemen=
t
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=3D"font-family:sans-serif;fon=
t-size:13.696px"><br>
</i></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif">Perhaps this is indeed th=
e
intented meaning, the speaker trying to say "if you aren'=
;t
continuously there, then..".</font></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif">But wouldn't you acce=
pt,
as a more literal way of saying "If you aren't there..&q=
uot; the
{pa' SoHbe'taHchugh..} ?</font></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif">The only
reasoning I see for placing the {-be'} after the {-taH}, is i=
f
we consider (because of the {pa'}) the {SoHtaH} as an "u=
nable
to be separated pair of words", thus leaving as an only opti=
on
the placement of the {-be'} after it.</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div><p>Since we've gotten some examples of it, I believe <b>-be&#=
39;</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]b=
e'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 e=
verything
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.<font color=3D"#888888"><br>
</font></p><font color=3D"#888888">
<pre class=3D"m_-692706791301221770moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=20
SuStel
<a class=3D"m_-692706791301221770moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"http://trim=
boli.name" target=3D"_blank">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</font></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a=
><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhinga=
n-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--94eb2c1cfe961adb410553a806c7--
--===============3042029891003841587==
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
--===============3042029891003841587==--
