[tlhIngan Hol] Imperatives and {-be'}

[SuStel]

On 7/6/2017 2:54 PM, Lieven wrote:
> On 7/6/2017 11:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>>> "Even though tkd says that {-be'} cannot be used with imperatives, 
>>> it seems that this means only that it cannot be used to form 
>>> negative imperatives. For example, a sentence such as {HIleghbe'moH} 
>>> seems to be possible"
>>>
>>> I can't understand this. Isn't the {HIleghbe'moH} a negative 
>>> imperative ? Doesn't it mean "make me not see !" ?
>
> Am 06.07.2017 um 17:28 schrieb SuStel:
>> boQwI' is wrong.
>
> Don't be so strict; just because boQwI' mentions something we have no 
> rue for, it does not mean that it's wrong. As you said, there is no 
> example for or against this, so you cannot be sure at all.

There sure is an example against this: TKD's explicit pronouncement that 
*-be' *is not used with imperatives. And since you can't prove a 
negative, only pronouncements could possibly lead to that rule.

Maybe Okrand meant it only can't be used to negate the sense of /do 
this!/ but he didn't say that.


>
>> I don't know how the creator came to that conclusion. It would be 
>> convenient if we could, but TKD prohibits it and I don't think we've 
>> ever seen a counterexample.
>
> 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.


> What we can be sure of is that {HIleghmoHbe'} is forbidden, because 
> the -be' negates the command {HIleghmoH}, so we need -Qo' here.

So how about **yIta'vIpbe'?*


> If I'd stick to the rules, I should just replace the be' with the -Qo' 
> and get {HIleghQo'moH}... but wait: "Unlike {-be',} the position of 
> {-Qo'} does not change" (TKD) so it comes to the end: {HIleghmoHQo'} - 
> but that is something else, right?

TKD doesn't say you replace *-be'* with *-Qo'.*


> Just like the note in boQwI', I am also convinced that the following 
> phrases should be grammatical:
>
> {HIleghmoH} "make me see"
> {HIleghbe'moH} "make me not see"
> It's different from "Don't make me see", which is different in English 
> as well.
> {HIleghbe'moHQo'} "Don't make me not see"

It makes perfect, logical sense. But it's forbidden by TKD. Until such 
time as Okrand gives us an unambiguous example, or delivers a 
pronouncement in one direction or the other, the only evidence that 
exists says you /can't/ do this.


> Anyway, to avoid this, use -Ha' instead. It can be use in imperatives.

But it doesn't mean the same thing. *HIleghHa'moH* means /make me unsee 
it,/ not /make me not see it./

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170706/a1de3567/attachment-0016.htm>