[tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: tIw

[nIqolay Q]

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> It seems neither {tIw} nor {vang} should be negated in this case. What
> needs negating is the causation expressed by {-mo'}, but known grammar
> rules preclude a rover after a VS9 so it can't be negated that way, nor is
> there any known adverbial that can do it. The same could happen with {-meH}
> when purpose is what needs to be negated. Maybe something like:
> {muvangmoHbe' tIwmeH laHwIj} "My capacity for reacting emotionally does not
> me to act."
>

​My solution: introduce a higher-level clause and negate that. {jItIwmo'
jIvang net tu'be'.} "One does not observe that I acted because I was
emotional." ​(Or perhaps less literally "It is not the case that I acted
because I was emotional", which sounds a little like a formal logic
textbook.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171202/a181c7d5/attachment-0016.htm>