[tlhIngan Hol] {je} "too" with negative meanings on the second sentence

[De'vID]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 at 15:07, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 11/10/2021 7:50 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>
> And so on. So I don't think you'd combine
>
> *yaS luHoHpu'*
> and
> * 'a be' luHoHpu'be' je*
>
> in this way. Here, you're changing both the object and the verb.
>
> Just say *yaS luHoHpu' 'a be' luHoHpu'be'** They killed the officer but
> they didn't kill the woman.* The *'a** but* handles the unexpectedness of
> the woman not also being killed. If you wanted to emphasize the exception,
> you could say something like *yaS luHoHpu' 'a yIntaHbe' 'e' luchaw'**
> They killed the man but they permitted the woman to live.*
>
I can see how the example sentence might have come about, though.

Suppose I were to say:
{yaS luHoHpu'. be' luHoHpu' je.} "They killed the officer. They killed the
woman also [i.e., they killed the woman, in addition to the officer]."

Nothing controversial there. Now suppose that I'm reporting back to someone
who is expecting me to say the above. Maybe I'm a hostage negotiator and
things are going badly, and I leave the building where the terrorists have
just killed at least one hostage to report to the police chief. I say:
{yaS luHoHpu'. 'ach be' luHoHpu'be' je.} "They killed the officer. But they
didn't kill the woman also [i.e., kill the woman, in addition to the
officer]."

I don't even think the English sentences sound strange here. If you think
of it as applying {je} to the negated sentence, then it looks like too many
things have changed at once for {je} to be applicable. But I think of the
above example as applying the {-be'} to {be' luHoHpu' je}. And I don't
think the meaning is quite exactly the same with {'a} but no {je}. There's
a difference between "They didn't kill the woman" and "They didn't kill the
woman also", namely, one of emphasis. "They killed the officer, but they
didn't kill the woman" is a matter-of-fact statement. "They killed the
officer, but they didn't kill the woman also" has the implication that
"things could've been worse".

I don't think there was anything wrong with the Klingon sentence and it
could make sense in context.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20211110/864da4f3/attachment-0005.htm>