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

[Will Martin]

My read of the note is that ALL NEGATIVE IMPERATIVES USE {Qo’}. In addition to that, some imperatives might also have one or more {-be’}s. I don’t think you can have an imperative that has {-be’} instead of {-Qo’}.

Note that {-be’} is the only suffix that can be used more than once in a Klingon verb, since it is the only true roving suffix, and it specifically negates whatever it follows.

It can be ambiguous, in terms of whether it negates only the suffix immediately in front of it, or if it negates the entire verb and suffix string leading up to it. The point is that it doesn’t negate anything that follows it.

I don’t think you could string multiple {-be’}s together. That would be “highly marked”, like putting {-ghach} on a bare verb.

But nothing stops you from putting multiple {-be’}s along the string of suffixes after a verb, so nothing stops you from doing so before {-Qo’}.

Meanwhile negating a command is synonymous to “don’t”, so you can’t negate a command without {-Qo’}.

… unless someone can come up with a weird case that currently escapes me.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Jun 8, 2019, at 6:04 AM, 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).
> 
> And now, lets return to the original subject of this thread.
> 
> jIH:
>> If I remember correctly, tkd has the Ca'Non example:
>> HIHoHvIpQo'
>> don't be afraid to kill me
>> If I say HIlajvIpQo', according to the above, it should translate to "don't be afraid to accept me".
> De'vID:
>> lugh
> 
> So far so good.
> 
> jIH:
>> However, the lajQo', has been given as "reject".
> De'vID:
>> mughmeH Qu' napmoHmeH neH jIyweS 'oH mu'vam'e'.
> 
> ok, I understand this too.
> 
> So, lets say I write HIlajQo'. The way I understand it, it literally
> means "don't accept me".
> 
> And if I write HIlajvIpQo', then it means "don't be afraid to accept me".
> 
> However, if I write HIlajbe', according to the qep'a' 2017, then what
> does it mean ? "not accept me" ?
> And if I write HIlajvIpbe', is it "be not afraid to accept be" ?
> And if I wrote HIlajvIpbe'Qo', is it "don't be not afraid to accept me" ?
> 
> I'm asking this because I'm trying to understand, what the qep'a'
> information on using -be' in imperatives actually means.
> 
> ~ m. qunen'oS
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190608/89cd297f/attachment-0015.htm>