[tlhIngan Hol] jIpuj'eghnISbe'moH or jIpuj'eghnISmoHbe' ?

[Felix Malmenbeck]

I would interpret {jIpuj'eghnISmoHbe'} *primarily* as something like "I need to desist from weakening myself".

However, I agree that trying to narrow down exact translations of verbs with negations and multiple affixes can be a bit of a fool's errand; context is going to be important; we've seen -be' "escape" from its expected role of negating the specific lexeme/morpheme it is attached to before. Context and stuff.

jIpuj'eghnISmoHbe'.

//loghaD

________________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 15:47
To: tlhingan-hol at lists.kli.org
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] jIpuj'eghnISbe'moH or jIpuj'eghnISmoHbe' ?

On 9/20/2019 9:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> SuStel:
> > The tighter you can make the scope of
> > the -be' suffix, the better, in my opinion.
> > Choose the first one.
>
> ok, thanks. The first one feels better to me too. But there is
> something I wonder..
>
> How would you interpret the {jIpuj'eghnISmoHbe'} ?
>
> "I don't cause myself to need to be weak" ?
>
> Or could it mean too, "I don't need to make myself weak", but this
> interpretation wouldn't be the first one that would come to the
> reader's mind ?

Probably either. Klingon reaches a certain point where trying to put too
fine a point on it just confuses things. I think you've reached that point.

--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org