I would interpret {jIpuj'eghnISmoHbe'} *primarily* as something like "I need to desist from weakening myself". However, I agree that trying to narrow down exact translations of verbs with negations and multiple affixes can be a bit of a fool's errand; context is going to be important; we've seen -be' "escape" from its expected role of negating the specific lexeme/morpheme it is attached to before. Context and stuff. jIpuj'eghnISmoHbe'. //loghaD ________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 15:47 To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] jIpuj'eghnISbe'moH or jIpuj'eghnISmoHbe' ? On 9/20/2019 9:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
The tighter you can make the scope of the -be' suffix, the better, in my opinion. Choose the first one.
ok, thanks. The first one feels better to me too. But there is something I wonder..
How would you interpret the {jIpuj'eghnISmoHbe'} ?
"I don't cause myself to need to be weak" ?
Or could it mean too, "I don't need to make myself weak", but this interpretation wouldn't be the first one that would come to the reader's mind ?
Probably either. Klingon reaches a certain point where trying to put too fine a point on it just confuses things. I think you've reached that point. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org