[tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' webpage

[SuStel]

On 7/6/2017 11:27 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> SuStel:
> > *pa' SoHtaHbe'chugh vaj meyrI' SoH*
> /if you are not there then you are a square/
> /
> /
> The placement of {-be'} confuses me. If we choose to place it after 
> the {-taH} then doesn't the meaning become "If you aren't there 
> continuously" ?/
> /
>
> Perhaps this is indeed the intented meaning, the speaker trying to say 
> "if you aren't continuously there, then..".
>
> But wouldn't you accept, as a more literal way of saying "If you 
> aren't there.." the {pa' SoHbe'taHchugh..} ?
>
> The only reasoning I see for placing the {-be'} after the {-taH}, is 
> if we consider (because of the {pa'}) the {SoHtaH} as an "unable to be 
> separated pair of words", thus leaving as an only option the placement 
> of the {-be'} after it.

Since we've gotten some examples of it, I believe *-be'* doesn't 
necessarily negate only the single, immediately preceding element, but 
it can refer to the entire preceding concept, especially for suffixes 
that aren't typically negated. So what I said was meant as 
*[SoHtaH]be'chugh* instead of *SoH[taH]be'chugh.*

A canonical example of this is from /Power Klingon:/ *Hoch DaSopbe'chugh 
batlh bIHeghbe'*/if you don't eat everything you will die without 
honor./ Clearly, *-be'* here is referring to the entire phrase *batlh 
bIHegh* and not just the *Hegh.*

Another example from /Conversational //Klingon/ is *vIta'pu'be'*/I 
didn't do it./ This doesn't mean I did it in a non-perfective way; the 
entire verb before the *-be'* is being negated as a unit.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170706/d3949c97/attachment-0016.htm>