[109812] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Imperatives and {-be'}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Thu Jul 6 15:08:18 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 15:07:44 -0400
In-Reply-To: <e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============3257132437874990341==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------188D37A52D57FEA3E57285F3"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------188D37A52D57FEA3E57285F3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 7/6/2017 2:54 PM, Lieven wrote:
> On 7/6/2017 11:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>>> "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 !" ?
>
> Am 06.07.2017 um 17:28 schrieb SuStel:
>> boQwI' is wrong.
>
> Don't be so strict; just because boQwI' mentions something we have no
> rue for, it does not mean that it's wrong. As you said, there is no
> example for or against this, so you cannot be sure at all.
There sure is an example against this: TKD's explicit pronouncement that
*-be' *is not used with imperatives. And since you can't prove a
negative, only pronouncements could possibly lead to that rule.
Maybe Okrand meant it only can't be used to negate the sense of /do
this!/ but he didn't say that.
>
>> 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.
>
> TKD does not explicitely prohibit THIS example, it prohibits using
> -be' in the puporse of a negative imperative.
TKD says "The suffix *-be'* cannot be used with imperative verbs." It
does not draw the distinction you are making. It /does/ explicitly
prohibit this example. Whether or not that's what Okrand meant is
another story.
> What we can be sure of is that {HIleghmoHbe'} is forbidden, because
> the -be' negates the command {HIleghmoH}, so we need -Qo' here.
So how about **yIta'vIpbe'?*
> If I'd stick to the rules, I should just replace the be' with the -Qo'
> and get {HIleghQo'moH}... but wait: "Unlike {-be',} the position of
> {-Qo'} does not change" (TKD) so it comes to the end: {HIleghmoHQo'} -
> but that is something else, right?
TKD doesn't say you replace *-be'* with *-Qo'.*
> Just like the note in boQwI', I am also convinced that the following
> phrases should be grammatical:
>
> {HIleghmoH} "make me see"
> {HIleghbe'moH} "make me not see"
> It's different from "Don't make me see", which is different in English
> as well.
> {HIleghbe'moHQo'} "Don't make me not see"
It makes perfect, logical sense. But it's forbidden by TKD. Until such
time as Okrand gives us an unambiguous example, or delivers a
pronouncement in one direction or the other, the only evidence that
exists says you /can't/ do this.
> Anyway, to avoid this, use -Ha' instead. It can be use in imperatives.
But it doesn't mean the same thing. *HIleghHa'moH* means /make me unsee
it,/ not /make me not see it./
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------188D37A52D57FEA3E57285F3
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 2:54 PM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">On 7/6/2017
11:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">"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"
<br>
<br>
I can't understand this. Isn't the {HIleghbe'moH} a negative
imperative ? Doesn't it mean "make me not see !" ?
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
Am 06.07.2017 um 17:28 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">boQwI' is wrong.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Don't be so strict; just because boQwI' mentions something we have
no rue for, it does not mean that it's wrong. As you said, there
is no example for or against this, so you cannot be sure at all.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>There sure is an example against this: TKD's explicit
pronouncement that <b>-be' </b>is not used with imperatives. And
since you can't prove a negative, only pronouncements could
possibly lead to that rule.<br>
</p>
<p>Maybe Okrand meant it only can't be used to negate the sense of <i>do
this!</i> but he didn't say that.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
TKD does not explicitely prohibit THIS example, it prohibits using
-be' in the puporse of a negative imperative. </blockquote>
<br>
<p>TKD says "The suffix <b>-be'</b> cannot be used with imperative
verbs." It does not draw the distinction you are making. It <i>does</i>
explicitly prohibit this example. Whether or not that's what
Okrand meant is another story.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">What we can
be sure of is that {HIleghmoHbe'} is forbidden, because the -be'
negates the command {HIleghmoH}, so we need -Qo' here.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>So how about <b>*yIta'vIpbe'?</b><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">
If I'd stick to the rules, I should just replace the be' with the
-Qo' and get {HIleghQo'moH}... but wait: "Unlike {-be',} the
position of {-Qo'} does not change" (TKD) so it comes to the end:
{HIleghmoHQo'} - but that is something else, right?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>TKD doesn't say you replace <b>-be'</b> with <b>-Qo'.</b><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">
Just like the note in boQwI', I am also convinced that the
following phrases should be grammatical:
<br>
<br>
{HIleghmoH} "make me see"
<br>
{HIleghbe'moH} "make me not see"
<br>
It's different from "Don't make me see", which is different in
English as well.
<br>
{HIleghbe'moHQo'} "Don't make me not see"
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>It makes perfect, logical sense. But it's forbidden by TKD. Until
such time as Okrand gives us an unambiguous example, or delivers a
pronouncement in one direction or the other, the only evidence
that exists says you <i>can't</i> do this.</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">
Anyway, to avoid this, use -Ha' instead. It can be use in
imperatives.</blockquote>
<p>But it doesn't mean the same thing. <b>HIleghHa'moH</b> means <i>make
me unsee it,</i> not <i>make me not see it.</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>
--------------188D37A52D57FEA3E57285F3--
--===============3257132437874990341==
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
--===============3257132437874990341==--
