Can someone explain, how {maleghbe'egh} is different from {malegh'eghbe'}, and how {maleghbe'chuq} is different from {maleghchuqbe'} ? ~ nI'ghma
On 9/8/2018 3:16 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Can someone explain, how {maleghbe'egh} is different from {malegh'eghbe'}, and how {maleghbe'chuq} is different from {maleghchuqbe'} ?
They mean the same thing. /We not-see ourselves /versus /We do not see-ourselves./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 00:45 SuStel, <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/8/2018 3:16 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Can someone explain, how {maleghbe'egh} is different from {malegh'eghbe'}, and how {maleghbe'chuq} is different from {maleghchuqbe'} ?
They mean the same thing. *We not-see ourselves *versus *We do not see-ourselves.*
Why not "we see not ourselves"? -- De'vID
On 9/8/2018 7:51 PM, De'vID wrote:
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 00:45 SuStel, <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 9/8/2018 3:16 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Can someone explain, how {maleghbe'egh} is different from {malegh'eghbe'}, and how {maleghbe'chuq} is different from {maleghchuqbe'} ?
They mean the same thing. /We not-see ourselves /versus /We do not see-ourselves./
Why not "we see not ourselves"?
You mean we see someone other than ourselves? If *-'eghbe'* means anything, I expect it means "not reflexive," not "someone other than ourselves." I'm not sure *malegh['eghbe']* means anything other than *malegh. *I would always interpret it as *[malegh'egh]be'.* I also think that Klingon grammarians would scoff at the seriousness with which we try to pin meanings and scopes on the rovers. ** -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
So if the rover in has the effect of negating the whole thing anyway in both *maleghbe''egh* and *malegh'eghbe'*, then what might be a reason for Klingons to say it one way rather than the other? Maybe they just say what sounds more natural to them. To me, the latter sounds more natural because of *SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'* in TKW. (This is what finally got me to switch from saying *tu'be'lu'*, which originally seemed more logical to me, since I have no idea what negating *-lu'* would even mean. That, and I came to dislike the sing-songy sound of *tu'be'lu'*. But I digress.) Another possibility is emphasis. Let's suppose Klingons usually say *malegh'eghbe'*. In that case, maybe Klingons say *maleghbe''egh* to mean "We don't *see* each other." To emphasize "each other," perhaps they'd just say *malegh'eghbe'* with more stress on the *-'egh*. (And to emphasize "we," there's *malegh'eghbe' maH*.) ~mIp'av
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 03:06, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/8/2018 7:51 PM, De'vID wrote:
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 00:45 SuStel, <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/8/2018 3:16 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Can someone explain, how {maleghbe'egh} is different from {malegh'eghbe'}, and how {maleghbe'chuq} is different from {maleghchuqbe'} ?
They mean the same thing. *We not-see ourselves *versus *We do not see-ourselves.*
Why not "we see not ourselves"?
You mean we see someone other than ourselves? If *-'eghbe'* means anything, I expect it means "not reflexive," not "someone other than ourselves." I'm not sure *malegh['eghbe']* means anything other than *malegh. *I would always interpret it as *[malegh'egh]be'.*
Say the House of Mo'Kai surgically alters a group of Klingons to look Human. They look into the mirror. {majQa'! malegh'eghbe'!} (Yeah, yeah, {mu'mey ru'}...) -- De'vID
participants (4)
-
De'vID -
Ed Bailey -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel