On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 12:05 mayqel qunen'oS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand the arguments so far, but there is still something I don't understand.
First, lets remember what was written, in the leaflet of qep'a' 2017:
"Finally... a note about -Qo'. There's apparently been some confusion about -be' and -Qo' in imperatives. This is no doubt because this was not explained as clearly as it could have been in the Dictionary. The rule says -Qo' "is used in imperatives" and that -Qo' is "the imperative counterpart to -be'." The rule isn't that -be' can't appear anywhere in an imperative construction; it's that -be' can't be used to mean "don't!" - use -Qo' for that. In other words, -Qo' is used (and -be' is not) to indicate a negative command, when the meaning of the command is "don't do X!" X may contain a -be', but if the command is to not do X, you still need -Qo' at the end (if you're saying "don't do X" and not "do not-X")".
(I copied the above by hand from the leaflet, so double-check with it for possible errors).
taH: --- tagh --- {choleghbe'moH} means "you cause me to not see." If you wanted make this a command ("Cause me to not see!"), it would be {HIleghbe'moH}. That's fine. I'm telling you to do something ("cause me to not see") not to not do something. It doesn't violate the rule about using {-Qo'} instead of {-be'} because it's not a negative command. The corresponding negative command would be {HIleghbe'moHQo'} "Don't cause me to not see!" When {-Qo'} is used in a non-imperative, it's straightforward: {choleghbe'moHQo'} "you refuse to cause me to not see." --- rIn --- QIjchu' 'e' vIHar. -- De'vID