[87288] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Double negatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Mon Nov 30 13:43:03 2009
In-Reply-To: <f1d476f10911300629i24c7add0md198479aa831248b@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:39:49 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 06:29, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> Klingon does not employ "negative concord" the way some languages do.
Whence does this conclusion come?
> Double negatives in Klingon appear to act the way they do in Standard
> English, with one negating the other and yielding an affirmative
> meaning.
This doesn't happen in Standard English, and it is stupid to say so.
Language is not math, and two negatives do not make a positive, and
saying so borders on various kinds of "-ists."
There is, further, reason to believe that we might see differences in
English in Klingon: in English, "not" negates an entire clause; in
Klingon, <-be'> negates only what immediately precedes it. So, in
Klingon, a clause with a negative <-be'> and, say, a <not>, don't
really have two negatives with the same scope.
I'm not saying this is okay in Klingon, just that it might be. And
that two negatives equal a positive is stupid.
