<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/6/2017 2:54 PM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">On 7/6/2017
11:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">"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"
<br>
<br>
I can't understand this. Isn't the {HIleghbe'moH} a negative
imperative ? Doesn't it mean "make me not see !" ?
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
Am 06.07.2017 um 17:28 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">boQwI' is wrong.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>There sure is an example against this: TKD's explicit
pronouncement that <b>-be' </b>is not used with imperatives. And
since you can't prove a negative, only pronouncements could
possibly lead to that rule.<br>
</p>
<p>Maybe Okrand meant it only can't be used to negate the sense of <i>do
this!</i> but he didn't say that.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
TKD does not explicitely prohibit THIS example, it prohibits using
-be' in the puporse of a negative imperative. </blockquote>
<br>
<p>TKD says "The suffix <b>-be'</b> cannot be used with imperative
verbs." It does not draw the distinction you are making. It <i>does</i>
explicitly prohibit this example. Whether or not that's what
Okrand meant is another story.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">What we can
be sure of is that {HIleghmoHbe'} is forbidden, because the -be'
negates the command {HIleghmoH}, so we need -Qo' here.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>So how about <b>*yIta'vIpbe'?</b><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">
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?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>TKD doesn't say you replace <b>-be'</b> with <b>-Qo'.</b><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">
Just like the note in boQwI', I am also convinced that the
following phrases should be grammatical:
<br>
<br>
{HIleghmoH} "make me see"
<br>
{HIleghbe'moH} "make me not see"
<br>
It's different from "Don't make me see", which is different in
English as well.
<br>
{HIleghbe'moHQo'} "Don't make me not see"
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>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 <i>can't</i> do this.</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e46dcad8-6d1e-c497-41a2-e41a3baba5e0@gmx.de">
Anyway, to avoid this, use -Ha' instead. It can be use in
imperatives.</blockquote>
<p>But it doesn't mean the same thing. <b>HIleghHa'moH</b> means <i>make
me unsee it,</i> not <i>make me not see it.</i><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>