<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/10/2020 3:31 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:710AB2E8-5291-4038-8A88-D7C2A71040C5@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="">Let's get back to the original example, which you
appear to wish to defend as acceptable, even if everybody, and I
do mean EVERYBODY, agrees that your suggested alternatives are
better.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>My suggestions simply avoid an area of grammar which we're not
sure of. They're not better expressions. If the grammar works the
way mayqel was assuming, which it might, then his sentences are
better for being more concise. But it's not clear whether the
negation can cover the cause-noun he provided, so I reworded it to
avoid that question. This has nothing to do with what is "more
Klingon" to say.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:710AB2E8-5291-4038-8A88-D7C2A71040C5@mac.com">
<div class="">His English sentence was: "I won't destroy my life
because of her.” He admitted it was ambiguous and he made it
clear that he did NOT mean that she was the cause of him not
destroying his life, then he attempted a
word-by-word-without-reference-to-the-underlying-meaning
translation of the original, ambiguous English sentence.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>He did consider the underlying meaning, which is why he asked the
question in the first place. He was wondering whether the negation
covered the entire phrase or just the verb. And I said the answer
to that is unclear, so here's an alternative to avoid the problem
in the first place.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:710AB2E8-5291-4038-8A88-D7C2A71040C5@mac.com">
<div class="">He picked the wrong negative suffix, since {-be’}
utterly fails to convey the willful refusal to perform the
action of the verb. It implies a passive lack of action. Both
your translations used {-Qo’}, instead, and you were right to do
so.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Sure, but the question was not about whether <b>-be'</b> or <b>-Qo'</b>
was the proper rover to use. I silently changed it precisely
because that wasn't the answer to the question.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:710AB2E8-5291-4038-8A88-D7C2A71040C5@mac.com">
<div class="">The Klingon version he proposed was {ghaHmo', yInwIj
vIQaw'be’}.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The only way this works as a translation other than
what he has explained he does NOT want to express, is to
interpret it as “I destroyed my life because of her — not.”</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It also might works as a translation if the <b>-be'</b> can be
applied to the entire phrase <b>ghaHmo' yInwIj vIQaw'.</b></p>
<p>We've seen <b>-be'</b> apply to more than just the immediately
preceding element. <b>batlh bIHeghbe'</b> <i>You will die
without honor </i>(not <i>You will not-die honorably</i>)
appears in <i>Power Klingon,</i> and there may be a couple of
other examples of this sort of thing. mayqel's problem is exactly
the same question. Is this <b>[ghaHmo' yInwIj vIQaw']be'</b>? To
answer the question by avoiding the problem, I reworded it. It has
nothing to do with what a Klingon would do. A Klingon would know
the answer to the grammatical question of the scope of <b>-be'.</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:710AB2E8-5291-4038-8A88-D7C2A71040C5@mac.com">All you
get out this uncommon parsing is, “It is not the case that I
destroyed my life because of her.”
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">That’s kind of vague, don’t you think?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, I don't. Not at all.</p>
<p>And you don't occupy some special position to declare that
Klingons would find it so.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:710AB2E8-5291-4038-8A88-D7C2A71040C5@mac.com">
<div class=""> If it’s not the case that he destroyed his life
because of her, then what exactly is the case? What is he
saying?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">“I destroyed my life because of her,” is a false
statement. So, what is the true statement?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I think this fully qualifies as vague, wittering,
and indecisive, hence my aversion to the translation.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Three things.</p>
<p>One: Saying something is not the case does not oblige one to say
what is the case. mayqel is expressing that he dodged a bullet. In
so doing, he doesn't have to tell anyone how great his life has
been instead. Question of grammar aside, mayqel has expressed
something as precisely as he meant to. Klingons are allowed to say
that some things didn't happen.<br>
</p>
<p>Two: My alternatives also simply state things that are not the
case, but you don't have a problem with them.<br>
</p>
<p>Three: Accusing people or their writing of being "vague,
wittering, and indecisive" is RUDE. Especially by turning it into
a catchphrase. It's not funny.<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>