[109836] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Imperatives and {-be'}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Jul 7 09:54:04 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 09:53:31 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmOc46a1BRX9zh8KSW8H8ut6waSoTWLyaTtQWHgEzjRJxg@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.
--===============1583224132853979527==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------D2ABB6A2EF0B8B6F66130847"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------D2ABB6A2EF0B8B6F66130847
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 7/7/2017 6:09 AM, De'vID wrote:
> 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").
Fair enough. As I've said, I don't think using *-be'* outside of the
commanding part of the word is an unreasonable thing to ask for. But I
do claim that "used with" meaning "in the word" is a MUCH more obvious
and natural interpretation than "that part of the sense of the word that
tells someone to do something." If Okrand meant that, he didn't say it
well... or at all.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------D2ABB6A2EF0B8B6F66130847
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 7/7/2017 6:09 AM, De'vID wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmOc46a1BRX9zh8KSW8H8ut6waSoTWLyaTtQWHgEzjRJxg@mail.gmail.com">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").</blockquote>
<p>Fair enough. As I've said, I don't think using <b>-be'</b>
outside of the commanding part of the word is an unreasonable
thing to ask for. But I do claim that "used with" meaning "in the
word" is a MUCH more obvious and natural interpretation than "that
part of the sense of the word that tells someone to do something."
If Okrand meant that, he didn't say it well... or at all.<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>
--------------D2ABB6A2EF0B8B6F66130847--
--===============1583224132853979527==
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
--===============1583224132853979527==--
