[109833] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Imperatives and {-be'}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Fri Jul 7 06:09:10 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <baf1b293-3649-79d5-fa42-72001f9c9d09@trimboli.name>
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:09:05 +0200
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============0531025807377519986==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114e59f4600ab10553b76c68"
--001a114e59f4600ab10553b76c68
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On 6 July 2017 at 21:07, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 7/6/2017 2:54 PM, Lieven wrote:
>> 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.
It doesn't actually *explicitly* rule out the distinction. That's something
you're reading into it.
At issue is what "used with" means. You interpret it to mean "used anywhere
within the same verb". Another Interpretation is that using a negation
suffix "with" an imperative verb means to negate the whole verb (that is,
"with" is not identical to "in").
TKD also says that when {-'egh} and {-chuq} are used, the prefix must show
"no object", but we know that's not true when the verb also has {-moH}. In
some places, TKD seems to treat verbs with {-moH} as if {-moH} hides the
prefixes before it.
--
De'vID
--001a114e59f4600ab10553b76c68
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><br>On 6 July 2017 at 21:07, SuStel <<a href=3D"mailto=
:sustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote=
:<br>> On 7/6/2017 2:54 PM, Lieven wrote:<br>>> TKD does not expli=
citely prohibit THIS example, it prohibits using -be' in<br>>> th=
e puporse of a negative imperative.<br>><br>> TKD says "The suff=
ix -be' cannot be used with imperative verbs." It does not<br>>=
draw the distinction you are making. It does explicitly prohibit this<br>&=
gt; example. Whether or not that's what Okrand meant is another story.<=
br><br>It doesn't actually *explicitly* rule out the distinction. That&=
#39;s something you're reading into it.<div dir=3D"auto"><br><div dir=
=3D"auto">At issue is what "used with" means. You interpret it to=
mean "used anywhere within the same verb". Another Interpretatio=
n is that using a negation suffix "with" an imperative verb means=
to negate the whole verb (that is, "with" is not identical to &q=
uot;in").</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">TKD also =
says that when {-'egh} and {-chuq} are used, the prefix must show "=
;no object", but we know that's not true when the verb also has {-=
moH}. In some places, TKD seems to treat verbs with {-moH} as if {-moH} hid=
es the prefixes before it.<br><br>-- <br>De'vID</div></div></div>
--001a114e59f4600ab10553b76c68--
--===============0531025807377519986==
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
--===============0531025807377519986==--
