<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 5/7/2019 4:39 PM, Jeffrey Clark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:08F40A4F-8D07-4600-8075-F0B68672BD6A@gmail.com">
<div>A point I tried to make in my previous reply was that a use
of the irregular {qarbe’’a’} is unusual, and would draw
attention to it’s use over the more normal {qar’a’}. You see
this tactic used frequently as a signalling device for specific
intentionallities in academic writing, precisely because it
calls attention to itself.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>And that's fine.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:08F40A4F-8D07-4600-8075-F0B68672BD6A@gmail.com">
<div>I maintain that it is perfectly grammatical, and parseable,
and — in the right context — desirable (depending on the
intention of the speaker). If we follow your logic of “Okrand
never used it that way” too far, we can easily arrive at an
extreme of only using sentences that Okrand used… but, why
bother having grammatical rules if we don’t allow ourselves room
to communicate using those rules? Or should we not acknowledge
and discuss the diversity available in expressing thoughts and
the subtleties inherent in making those choices?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You have incorrectly applied my logic. I do not say "if Okrand
didn't say it, we can't say it." I say "Okrand gave us a special,
not-reproducible-by-other-rules feature of the language, so when
using that feature as that feature, use it the way he gave us."
There is no slippery slope here.</p>
<p>I have no problem with analyzing the word <b>qarbe''a'.</b> It
means something, and we can discuss its meaning.</p>
<p>What I do have a problem with is treating <b>qarbe''a'</b> like
an alternative of <b>qar'a',</b> which we have no evidence of. I
know how mayqel posts: he tries to probe the limits of the
language. He's used to asking negative tag questions in his native
and learned languages, and he's trying to do the same in Klingon.
And so far as we know, the tag question formula we're given does
not include negatives.</p>
<p>Maybe it does and we just haven't been told yet. But the variable
placement of <b>qar'a'</b> in a sentence shows that it is not
simply the sentence <b>qar'a'</b> in a grammatically normal
position.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:08F40A4F-8D07-4600-8075-F0B68672BD6A@gmail.com">
<div>If someone asked me if I already ate lunch. The expected
answer would be some variation of “I ate.” We tend to use simple
tenses for simple questions. However, if the reply comes back “I
have eaten.” Despite meaning the same thing, by changing the
tense/mood of the verb, I’ve signalled something semantically —
the unusualness of the response calls attention to itself, even
if it conveys the same information. This is why we recognise
connotative and denotative meanings of things — the semantic
implications of a particular phrasing can have implications
beyond their literal meanings and their functional equivalency.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, {qar’a’} and {qarbe’’a’} are functionally equivalent, and
{qar’a’} is the expected form;</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No. <b>qar'a'</b> is a special case that's given to us; <b>qarbe'</b>
has not been given to us. You can say <b>De' Sov qar'a' HoD</b><i>
The captain knows the information, right?</i> and this is
impossible to construct with <b>qarbe''a'.</b> The two words are
not functionally equivalent.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:08F40A4F-8D07-4600-8075-F0B68672BD6A@gmail.com">Finally,
Okrand using the negative in the explanation for the idiomatic use
of {qar’a’} is irrelevant since “isn’t that so” is also an
idiomatic expression. Just because English uses the negative
doesn’t mean Klingon does.</blockquote>
<p>That's why I brought it up: people were getting hung up on the
negative tag question in English, so I showed how even Okrand
equated <i>isn't it right</i> with <b>qar'a'</b> and not <b>qarbe''a'.</b>
How English translates it is irrelevant. That was the point.<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>