<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 3:36 PM, SuStel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5e55dbb0-a6fa-c38e-d6af-499e37589de4@trimboli.name">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/7/2019 3:27 PM, Jeffrey Clark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:67C65C83-6CA8-4BB9-9FD5-1D9DB6C3B5B1@gmail.com">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p>Except <b>qar'a'</b> is a recognized feature of the
language, while <b>qarbe''a'</b> is not. I don't think
Klingons who hear <b>qar'a'</b> are thinking that it
means <i>is it correct?</i> It would come across to them
more like <i>amiright?</i> It's a thing you say, not a
sentence to be parsed.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>While I agree that Klingon’s likely don’t parse it that way
intuitively, the idiomatic understanding is clearly derived
from it’s literal meaning.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> qarbe’’a’ is both grammatical and parseable — if not
commonly heard as an idiomatic expression. Likely {muj’a’}
would be more direct; but playing on {qar’a’}, the {qarbe’’a’}
seems like it would signal the asker’s increased doubt rather
than uncertainty — shades of meaning.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. But a Klingon hearing <b>qarbe''a'</b> would not simply
reverse the sense of <b>qar'a';</b> he or she would have to
parse it as a separate sentence, and so their alertness would be
raised. The two are not, I think, as interchangeable as your
post suggests.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Without a word from Okrand otherwise, one could not, for
instance, correctly say <b>De' Sov qarbe''a' HoD,</b> but one CAN
say <b>De' Sov qar'a' HoD</b><i> The captain knows the
information, right?</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>