On 6 July 2017 at 17:28, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/6/2017 11:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Apologising once more in advance for quoting boQwI', I need to bring this up, because there I read that..
Stop claiming to be "quoting" {boQwI'} when what you're doing is paraphrasing things out of context. Primary sources are annotated in {boQwI'}, and extra-canonical notes are in a footer section in a smaller font. Please just ignore the footer section until you understand the primary sources.
"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"
I can't understand this. Isn't the {HIleghbe'moH} a negative imperative ? Doesn't it mean "make me not see !" ?
boQwI' is wrong.
That snippet isn't from the main entry, but from an additional notes section with extra-canonical things like puns, observations from comments made on the mailing list, and so on. In this case, it's recording an observation (apparently made by Qov in Feb. 2014) that the statement in TKD is implicitly "{-be'} cannot be used *with* imperative verbs [to negate them]" (emphasis mine, and the implicit part in [brackets]), but a possible reading of the statement doesn't rule out that the imperative verb has a {-be'} *in* it (where it is not negating the whole verb). I no longer have the context for the observation, but presumably Qov used such a construction in one of her stories and was called out on it. Does anyone remember (or can find the original comment in the archives)? -- De'vID