placement of {-be'} relative to the {-pu'} and {-ta'}
I've always wondered with regards to the placement of the {-be'} relative to the {-pu'} and {-ta'}. As far as the {-pu'} is concerned, since the tkd has the Ca'Non example of {vIta'pu'be'}, I decided to *always* write {-pu'be'} instead of {-be'pu'}. Before I continue, does anyone have something to comment on the above ? And now I continue.. However, I'm still puzzled as far as the placement of the {-be'} relative to the {-ta'} is concerned. So far, I just flipped a coin in order to decide.. But since there are days, when you reach into your pocket without finding any change, I'd like to ask: Are there any Ca'Non examples of the {-be'} relative to the {-ta'} ? And if there aren't, then what the @!#! should I do ? ~ m. qunen'oS
On 9/18/2019 9:24 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Are there any Ca'Non examples of the {-be'} relative to the {-ta'} ?
And if there aren't, then what the @!#! should I do ?
/paq'batlh/ has *loDnI'wI' bIHoHta'be'*/My brother, you failed to kill./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
AFAIK there is only one example of {-ta'} with {-be'}: loDnI'wI' bIHoHta'be' My brother, you failed to kill (PB) ... and 3 examples of {-pu'} with {-be'}: vIta'pu'be' I didn't do it. TKD pa' jIHpu'be' I wasn't there. TKD 'entepray' Hub patmey luchu'be'lu'pu' Enterprise defense systems are down. (ST5 notes) There aren't many, but 3 of the 4 show {-be'/-ta'} + {be'}. The ST5 example is the only one where {-be'} precedes the Type 7 suffix and it's also the only one with {-lu'}, which may or may not be relevant. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons ----------------------------------------Original Message---------------------------------------- From: mayqel qunen'oS I've always wondered with regards to the placement of the {-be'} relative to the {-pu'} and {-ta'}. As far as the {-pu'} is concerned, since the tkd has the Ca'Non example of {vIta'pu'be'}, I decided to *always* write {-pu'be'} instead of {-be'pu'}. Before I continue, does anyone have something to comment on the above ? [...] However, I'm still puzzled as far as the placement of the {-be'} relative to the {-ta'} is concerned. So far, I just flipped a coin in order to decide.. But since there are days, when you reach into your pocket without finding any change, I'd like to ask: Are there any Ca'Non examples of the {-be'} relative to the {-ta'} ? And if there aren't, then what the @!#! should I do ?
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 15:24, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I've always wondered with regards to the placement of the {-be'} relative to the {-pu'} and {-ta'}.
As far as the {-pu'} is concerned, since the tkd has the Ca'Non example of {vIta'pu'be'}, I decided to *always* write {-pu'be'} instead of {-be'pu'}.
TKD says "It follows the concept being negated". Here, {vIta'pu'} "I did it" is the concept. Before I continue, does anyone have something to comment on the above ?
And now I continue..
However, I'm still puzzled as far as the placement of the {-be'} relative to the {-ta'} is concerned.
Since {-ta'} is the same suffix type as {-pu'}, why would you expect it to work any differently with respect to {-be'}? -- De'vID
De'vID:
Since {-ta'} is the same suffix type as {-pu'}, why would you expect it to work any differently with respect to {-be'}?
Saying {jISopbe'ta'}, gives me the impression that "my purpose was not to eat, and I accomplished not to eat". I *feel* the {-be'} acting solely on the {jISop} and then the {-ta'} modifying the entire {jISopbe'} Saying {jISopta'be'} gives me the impression that "my purpose was to eat, but intentionally I didn't achieve this purpose". Here, I *feel* the {-be'} acting solely on the {-ta'}, and then the combined {-ta'be'} acting on the {jISop} I know that the above explanations probably don't make no sense, but I can't describe it any better. Now, perhaps you'll wonder why I don't *feel* that way for the {-be'pu'} vs {-pu'be'}. I don't know.. Perhaps, it's the "intentionality" expressed by the {-ta'} which @!#! me up.. Anyways, since we have Ca'Non showing the use of {-ta'be'}, then my problem is solved. - m. qunen'oS
As SuStel has suggested in the past, {-be’} doesn’t exclusively negate the single affix it follows. It negates the whole verb combined with any affixes between the verb and {-be’}. I agree that {jISopbe’ta’} clearly means that I intended to not eat, and I accomplished the goal of not eating. The time span during which one evaluates whether or not I accomplish this goal is complete, and I still haven’t eaten. If the time span one might consider to include all the time my goal was to not eat was not yet complete, then this statement would be a lie, because I will not have completed the mission. I will have merely progressed toward its completion, but I still would have time to go before I can claim my achievement. I disagree with your interpretation that {jISopta’be’} implies that I intended to not accomplish the goal of eating. It just means “I did not accomplish eating.” The implication is that since I’m viewing the act of eating as an accomplishment, then most likely, my intent is to eat. The ambiguity here is, which of the following is true?: 1. The time span during which one judges whether or not I have accomplished the goal is completed, and I have not accomplished that goal, so I have failed my mission. 2. The time span during which one judges whether or not I have accomplished the goal is not yet complete, so I still could eat and my goal would then be accomplished, but so far, the mission is incomplete. The first option makes sense in the context of you witnessing me leaving a social event as they are closing down everything, and I look dejected, hungry, and perhaps a bit angry at myself, and/or the party, because I got here too late, or they ended the party too early. The second option makes sense in the context of responding to the Southern question famous for compressing four syllables into two: “Jeet Jet?” (Did you eat, yet?) I answer {jISopta’be’} and you invite me in for a meal. {DaH, choSopmoHlaHta’!} Aaaand we can argue over whether you have accomplished causing me to be able to eat, or whether you have caused me to accomplish being able to eat, because that could mean either one. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Sep 18, 2019, at 12:30 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
Since {-ta'} is the same suffix type as {-pu'}, why would you expect it to work any differently with respect to {-be'}?
Saying {jISopbe'ta'}, gives me the impression that "my purpose was not to eat, and I accomplished not to eat". I *feel* the {-be'} acting solely on the {jISop} and then the {-ta'} modifying the entire {jISopbe'}
Saying {jISopta'be'} gives me the impression that "my purpose was to eat, but intentionally I didn't achieve this purpose". Here, I *feel* the {-be'} acting solely on the {-ta'}, and then the combined {-ta'be'} acting on the {jISop}
I know that the above explanations probably don't make no sense, but I can't describe it any better.
Now, perhaps you'll wonder why I don't *feel* that way for the {-be'pu'} vs {-pu'be'}. I don't know.. Perhaps, it's the "intentionality" expressed by the {-ta'} which @!#! me up..
Anyways, since we have Ca'Non showing the use of {-ta'be'}, then my problem is solved.
- m. qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/18/2019 6:03 PM, Will Martin wrote:
As SuStel has suggested in the past, {-be’} doesn’t exclusively negate the single affix it follows. It negates the whole verb combined with any affixes between the verb and {-be’}.
What I have suggested is that the scope of *-be'* is not necessarily just the element it immediately follows. I do not claim there is a specific scope beyond that. What we observe about *-be'* is that it can apply to just the immediately preceding element, or it can apply to more than that. *Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'*/Eat everything or you will die without honor./ (PK) This was clearly invented before Okrand decided you could put *-Ha'* on adverbials. By a strict TKD reading, *batlh bIHeghbe'* means you will not die, and that not dying will be honorable. But actually the *-be'* is being applied either to just the adverbial /(not-honorably you will die) /or the entire phrase preceding it /(it is not the case that you will die honorably)./ The scope of *-be'* here is not limited to the elements between the verb root and the *-be'.*
I agree that {jISopbe’ta’} clearly means that I intended to not eat, and I accomplished the goal of not eating. The time span during which one evaluates whether or not I accomplish this goal is complete, and I still haven’t eaten.
The problem with the general analysis so far is that *-ta'* doesn't mean /intended to do something;/ it means /perfective,/ and just carries an additional connotation of having intended to do it. The primary job is to make the verb perfective. *jISopbe'ta'* means I set out not to eat and did not, in fact, eat. It is looking back at my not eating and reporting that I completed it.
I disagree with your interpretation that {jISopta’be’} implies that I intended to not accomplish the goal of eating. It just means “I did not accomplish eating.” The implication is that since I’m viewing the act of eating as an accomplishment, then most likely, my intent is to eat.
The expressed intent is to not eat. The goal that was accomplished was not eating.
The second option makes sense in the context of responding to the Southern question famous for compressing four syllables into two: “Jeet Jet?” (Did you eat, yet?)
To which the proper answer is "No, Jew?" -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 02:09, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/18/2019 6:03 PM, Will Martin wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation that {jISopta’be’} implies that I intended to not accomplish the goal of eating. It just means “I did not accomplish eating.” The implication is that since I’m viewing the act of eating as an accomplishment, then most likely, my intent is to eat.
The expressed intent is to not eat. The goal that was accomplished was not eating.
Was this comment intended to be about {jISopta'be'} or {jISopbe'ta'}? I don't believe {jISopta'be'} expresses the intent to not eat. -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin