[tlhIngan Hol] laj lajQo' {-vIp} and imperatives

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Sat Jun 8 06:24:40 PDT 2019


On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 12:05 mayqel qunen'oS, <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> I understand the arguments so far, but there is still something I
> don't understand.
>
> First, lets remember what was written, in the leaflet of qep'a' 2017:
>
> "Finally... a note about -Qo'. There's apparently been some confusion
> about -be' and -Qo' in imperatives. This is no doubt because this was
> not explained as clearly as it could have been in the Dictionary.
> The rule says -Qo' "is used in imperatives" and that -Qo' is "the
> imperative counterpart to -be'." The rule isn't that -be' can't appear
> anywhere in an imperative construction; it's that -be' can't be used
> to mean "don't!" - use -Qo' for that. In other words, -Qo' is used
> (and -be' is not) to indicate a negative command, when the meaning of
> the command is "don't do X!" X may contain a -be', but if the command
> is to not do X, you still need -Qo' at the end (if you're saying
> "don't do X" and not "do not-X")".
>
> (I copied the above by hand from the leaflet, so double-check with it
> for possible errors).


taH:

--- tagh ---
{choleghbe'moH} means "you cause me to not see." If you wanted make this a
command ("Cause me to not see!"), it would be {HIleghbe'moH}. That's fine.
I'm telling you to do something ("cause me to not see") not to not do
something. It doesn't violate the rule about using {-Qo'} instead of {-be'}
because it's not a negative command. The corresponding negative command
would be {HIleghbe'moHQo'} "Don't cause me to not see!"

When {-Qo'} is used in a non-imperative, it's straightforward:
{choleghbe'moHQo'} "you refuse to cause me to not see."
--- rIn ---

QIjchu' 'e' vIHar.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190608/fffa6323/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list