Imperatives and {-be'}
Apologising once more in advance for quoting boQwI', I need to bring this up, because there I read that.. "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 !" ? qunnoq
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..
"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. I don't know how the creator came to that conclusion. It would be convenient if we could, but TKD prohibits it and I don't think we've ever seen a counterexample. Without that convenience, we have to say things like *jIleghbe' 'e' yIqaSmoH*/cause me not seeing to occur!/ or be more direct: *mInwIj tIvel*/cover my eyes!/ or *pa' yIHurghmoH*/make the room dark!/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 7/6/2017 11:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
"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 !" ?
Am 06.07.2017 um 17:28 schrieb SuStel:
boQwI' is wrong.
Don't be so strict; just because boQwI' mentions something we have no rue for, it does not mean that it's wrong. As you said, there is no example for or against this, so you cannot be sure at all.
I don't know how the creator came to that conclusion. It would be convenient if we could, but TKD prohibits it and I don't think we've ever seen a counterexample.
TKD does not explicitely prohibit THIS example, it prohibits using -be' in the puporse of a negative imperative. Opposed to other suffixes, -be' is a Rover and changes its meaning depending on where it stands. (besides, always keep in mind that TKD was never intented to be 100% complete, so thhe author may just have skipped this specific situation.) What we can be sure of is that {HIleghmoHbe'} is forbidden, because the -be' negates the command {HIleghmoH}, so we need -Qo' here. If I'd stick to the rules, I should just replace the be' with the -Qo' and get {HIleghQo'moH}... but wait: "Unlike {-be',} the position of {-Qo'} does not change" (TKD) so it comes to the end: {HIleghmoHQo'} - but that is something else, right? Just like the note in boQwI', I am also convinced that the following phrases should be grammatical: {HIleghmoH} "make me see" {HIleghbe'moH} "make me not see" It's different from "Don't make me see", which is different in English as well. {HIleghbe'moHQo'} "Don't make me not see" Anyway, to avoid this, use -Ha' instead. It can be use in imperatives. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
lieven:
Anyway, to avoid this, use -Ha' instead. It can be use in imperatives.
You mean something like {HIvoqHa'Qo'} for "don't mistrust me" ? qunnoq On 6 Jul 2017 9:54 pm, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
On 7/6/2017 11:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
"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 !" ?
Am 06.07.2017 um 17:28 schrieb SuStel:
boQwI' is wrong.
Don't be so strict; just because boQwI' mentions something we have no rue for, it does not mean that it's wrong. As you said, there is no example for or against this, so you cannot be sure at all.
I don't know how the creator came to that conclusion. It would be
convenient if we could, but TKD prohibits it and I don't think we've ever seen a counterexample.
TKD does not explicitely prohibit THIS example, it prohibits using -be' in the puporse of a negative imperative. Opposed to other suffixes, -be' is a Rover and changes its meaning depending on where it stands.
(besides, always keep in mind that TKD was never intented to be 100% complete, so thhe author may just have skipped this specific situation.)
What we can be sure of is that {HIleghmoHbe'} is forbidden, because the -be' negates the command {HIleghmoH}, so we need -Qo' here.
If I'd stick to the rules, I should just replace the be' with the -Qo' and get {HIleghQo'moH}... but wait: "Unlike {-be',} the position of {-Qo'} does not change" (TKD) so it comes to the end: {HIleghmoHQo'} - but that is something else, right?
Just like the note in boQwI', I am also convinced that the following phrases should be grammatical:
{HIleghmoH} "make me see" {HIleghbe'moH} "make me not see" It's different from "Don't make me see", which is different in English as well. {HIleghbe'moHQo'} "Don't make me not see"
Anyway, to avoid this, use -Ha' instead. It can be use in imperatives.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
So the {HIleghmoHQo'} is correct for "don't make me see" ? On 6 Jul 2017 10:02 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
lieven:
Anyway, to avoid this, use -Ha' instead. It can be use in imperatives.
You mean something like {HIvoqHa'Qo'} for "don't mistrust me" ?
qunnoq
On 6 Jul 2017 9:54 pm, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
On 7/6/2017 11:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
"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 !" ?
Am 06.07.2017 um 17:28 schrieb SuStel:
boQwI' is wrong.
Don't be so strict; just because boQwI' mentions something we have no rue for, it does not mean that it's wrong. As you said, there is no example for or against this, so you cannot be sure at all.
I don't know how the creator came to that conclusion. It would be
convenient if we could, but TKD prohibits it and I don't think we've ever seen a counterexample.
TKD does not explicitely prohibit THIS example, it prohibits using -be' in the puporse of a negative imperative. Opposed to other suffixes, -be' is a Rover and changes its meaning depending on where it stands.
(besides, always keep in mind that TKD was never intented to be 100% complete, so thhe author may just have skipped this specific situation.)
What we can be sure of is that {HIleghmoHbe'} is forbidden, because the -be' negates the command {HIleghmoH}, so we need -Qo' here.
If I'd stick to the rules, I should just replace the be' with the -Qo' and get {HIleghQo'moH}... but wait: "Unlike {-be',} the position of {-Qo'} does not change" (TKD) so it comes to the end: {HIleghmoHQo'} - but that is something else, right?
Just like the note in boQwI', I am also convinced that the following phrases should be grammatical:
{HIleghmoH} "make me see" {HIleghbe'moH} "make me not see" It's different from "Don't make me see", which is different in English as well. {HIleghbe'moHQo'} "Don't make me not see"
Anyway, to avoid this, use -Ha' instead. It can be use in imperatives.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/6/2017 3:05 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
So the {HIleghmoHQo'} is correct for "don't make me see" ?
Yes. This does not seem to mean the same thing as /make me not see,/ however. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 7/6/2017 2:54 PM, Lieven wrote:
On 7/6/2017 11:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
"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 !" ?
Am 06.07.2017 um 17:28 schrieb SuStel:
boQwI' is wrong.
Don't be so strict; just because boQwI' mentions something we have no rue for, it does not mean that it's wrong. As you said, there is no example for or against this, so you cannot be sure at all.
There sure is an example against this: TKD's explicit pronouncement that *-be' *is not used with imperatives. And since you can't prove a negative, only pronouncements could possibly lead to that rule. Maybe Okrand meant it only can't be used to negate the sense of /do this!/ but he didn't say that.
I don't know how the creator came to that conclusion. It would be convenient if we could, but TKD prohibits it and I don't think we've ever seen a counterexample.
TKD does not explicitely prohibit THIS example, it prohibits using -be' in the puporse of a negative imperative.
TKD says "The suffix *-be'* cannot be used with imperative verbs." It does not draw the distinction you are making. It /does/ explicitly prohibit this example. Whether or not that's what Okrand meant is another story.
What we can be sure of is that {HIleghmoHbe'} is forbidden, because the -be' negates the command {HIleghmoH}, so we need -Qo' here.
So how about **yIta'vIpbe'?*
If I'd stick to the rules, I should just replace the be' with the -Qo' and get {HIleghQo'moH}... but wait: "Unlike {-be',} the position of {-Qo'} does not change" (TKD) so it comes to the end: {HIleghmoHQo'} - but that is something else, right?
TKD doesn't say you replace *-be'* with *-Qo'.*
Just like the note in boQwI', I am also convinced that the following phrases should be grammatical:
{HIleghmoH} "make me see" {HIleghbe'moH} "make me not see" It's different from "Don't make me see", which is different in English as well. {HIleghbe'moHQo'} "Don't make me not see"
It makes perfect, logical sense. But it's forbidden by TKD. Until such time as Okrand gives us an unambiguous example, or delivers a pronouncement in one direction or the other, the only evidence that exists says you /can't/ do this.
Anyway, to avoid this, use -Ha' instead. It can be use in imperatives.
But it doesn't mean the same thing. *HIleghHa'moH* means /make me unsee it,/ not /make me not see it./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 06.07.2017 um 21:07 schrieb SuStel:
There sure is an example against this:
I was talking abut canon phrases as an example.
TKD's explicit pronouncement that *-be' *is not used with imperatives.
true.
Maybe Okrand meant it only can't be used to negate the sense of /do this!/ but he didn't say that.
That how I read it: commands are "do it" and to say "don't" use {-Qo'}
What we can be sure of is that {HIleghmoHbe'} is forbidden, because the -be' negates the command {HIleghmoH}, so we need -Qo' here.
So how about **yIta'vIpbe'?*
What about it? It seems clear to me: yIta'vIpQo'
TKD doesn't say you replace *-be'* with *-Qo'.*
It doesn't use the verb "replace", but it says /The suffix {-be'} cannot be used with imperative verbs. For imperatives, the following suffix is required: {-Qo'} "don't!, won't"/
It makes perfect, logical sense. But it's forbidden by TKD. Until such time as Okrand gives us an unambiguous example,
True. After some thinking about that, I believe the problem is not so much within the -be' suffix, but more with the -moH. We have had problems with that already when it comes to direct objects (cf. yIghojmoH) TKD says that be' cannot be used with "imperative verbs". Now taking this literally, I think that we have looked at the -moH part too closely. When giving a negative command, Qo' is used, but a verb with -moH makes it two "verbs" (or actions), where the "cause" is seen as an action, and this one is not negative. Well, nevertheless, we won't know without asking Maltz. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 7/6/2017 3:32 PM, Lieven wrote:
Am 06.07.2017 um 21:07 schrieb SuStel:
There sure is an example against this:
I was talking abut canon phrases as an example.
How do you have an example sentence which proves you can't use *-be'* anywhere in an imperative? That's called proving a negative, which is quite an ironic phrase in this case. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 06.07.2017 um 20:54 schrieb Lieven:
there is no example for or against this,
Am 06.07.2017 um 21:07 schrieb SuStel:
There sure is an example against this:
On 7/6/2017 3:32 PM, Lieven wrote:
I was talking about canon phrases as an example.
Am 06.07.2017 um 21:46 schrieb SuStel:
How do you have an example sentence which proves you can't use *-be'* anywhere in an imperative?
Please stop twisting my words. In my first post, I said there are no examples, then you mentioned TKD. I corrected that we need canon PHRASES as examples. Of course there cannot be any examples proving the nonexistence of something. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
Am 06.07.2017 um 21:07 schrieb SuStel:
There sure is an example against this:
Have you heard of this Klingon slang term, for a person who insists on sticking to the rules, allowing no interpretations? It's {SelDon}. ;-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
jIH:
Apologising once more in advance for quoting boQwI', I need to bring this up, because there I read that.. De'vID: Stop claiming to be "quoting" {boQwI'} when what you're doing is paraphrasing things out of context.
I didn't paraphrase. I quoted the passage exactly as it is written. De'vID:
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. In this case, it's recording an observation (apparently made by Qov in Feb. 2014)
But since at the boQwI' entry, no referrence was made to the fact that it was written by Qov, then how was I supposed to know its original source in order to quote it ? If I just wrote "I read somewhere..", then someone would ask "where did you read it ?". qunnoq On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 06.07.2017 um 21:07 schrieb SuStel:
There sure is an example against this:
Have you heard of this Klingon slang term, for a person who insists on sticking to the rules, allowing no interpretations? It's {SelDon}. ;-)
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
lieven:
The clearest answer is {loDvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}, but isn't the {loD} the one who does {ghoj}?
I still don't understand the problem here. Do you mean that there is ambiguity in the sentence ? The only meaning I can see is "I teach klingon for (to) the man" with the man being the one who does the learning. qunnoq On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:26 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIH:
Apologising once more in advance for quoting boQwI', I need to bring this up, because there I read that.. De'vID: Stop claiming to be "quoting" {boQwI'} when what you're doing is paraphrasing things out of context.
I didn't paraphrase. I quoted the passage exactly as it is written.
De'vID:
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. In this case, it's recording an observation (apparently made by Qov in Feb. 2014)
But since at the boQwI' entry, no referrence was made to the fact that it was written by Qov, then how was I supposed to know its original source in order to quote it ?
If I just wrote "I read somewhere..", then someone would ask "where did you read it ?".
qunnoq
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 06.07.2017 um 21:07 schrieb SuStel:
There sure is an example against this:
Have you heard of this Klingon slang term, for a person who insists on sticking to the rules, allowing no interpretations? It's {SelDon}. ;-)
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 07.07.2017 um 09:26 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I didn't paraphrase. I quoted the passage exactly as it is written.
Quoting can be difficult sometimes. If I proceed now I could say "mayqel quoted the passage exactly as it is written" I did indeed quote your message as it was written and only added your name, so the meaning of the phrase is not wrong. Still, I have changed the quote. If I would now say that you wrote the above phrase, then it really is NOT correct, because you did not start it with "mayqel quoted ..." - did you? See the difference? A proper way to quote is really just quoting what was originally written, so in my own example, I should say that mayqel "quoted the passage exactly as it is written".
But since at the boQwI' entry, no referrence was made to the fact that it was written by Qov, then how was I supposed to know its original source in order to quote it ?
That is true. First, the footnotes are really only for advanced speakers who can handle them. Next, boQwI' is constantly growing, so this featue may be added one day.
If I just wrote "I read somewhere..", then someone would ask "where did you read it ?".
That was not the problem, the problem was the way of quoting. But keep going the way you are! Your kind of questions shows that you are really going into the language. I'm glad to see you back on the list. :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
Quvar:
I'm glad to see you back on the list
muQuchmoH mu'meylIj, jupwI' ! naDev vIcheghta'mo' jIbel je. qunnoq On 9 Jul 2017 10:40 pm, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote: Am 07.07.2017 um 09:26 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I didn't paraphrase. I quoted the passage exactly as it is written.
Quoting can be difficult sometimes. If I proceed now I could say "mayqel quoted the passage exactly as it is written" I did indeed quote your message as it was written and only added your name, so the meaning of the phrase is not wrong. Still, I have changed the quote. If I would now say that you wrote the above phrase, then it really is NOT correct, because you did not start it with "mayqel quoted ..." - did you? See the difference? A proper way to quote is really just quoting what was originally written, so in my own example, I should say that mayqel "quoted the passage exactly as it is written". But since at the boQwI' entry, no referrence was made to the fact that
it was written by Qov, then how was I supposed to know its original source in order to quote it ?
That is true. First, the footnotes are really only for advanced speakers who can handle them. Next, boQwI' is constantly growing, so this featue may be added one day. If I just wrote "I read somewhere..", then someone would ask "where
did you read it ?".
That was not the problem, the problem was the way of quoting. But keep going the way you are! Your kind of questions shows that you are really going into the language. I'm glad to see you back on the list. :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 7/7/2017 3:08 AM, Lieven wrote:
Am 06.07.2017 um 21:07 schrieb SuStel:
There sure is an example against this:
Have you heard of this Klingon slang term, for a person who insists on sticking to the rules, allowing no interpretations? It's {SelDon}. ;-)
Are there any rules governing behavior on this list (besides "about or in Klingon")? Any punishments? I can't find any. If there are, I would like to invoke them against Lieven. If there are not, vaj jItlhabmo' Lieven vItIchchu'. I would appreciate anyone with this information letting me know. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 7/7/2017 3:08 AM, Lieven wrote:
Have you heard of this Klingon slang term, for a person who insists on sticking to the rules, allowing no interpretations? It's {SelDon}. ;-)
Am 07.07.2017 um 15:45 schrieb SuStel:
Are there any rules governing behavior on this list (besides "about or in Klingon")? Any punishments? I can't find any. If there are, I would like to invoke them against Lieven.
Too bad some people cannot handle jokes marked with a smiley. -- Lieven L. Litaer http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
On 7/7/2017 12:17 PM, Lieven wrote:
On 7/7/2017 3:08 AM, Lieven wrote:
Have you heard of this Klingon slang term, for a person who insists on sticking to the rules, allowing no interpretations? It's {SelDon}. ;-)
Am 07.07.2017 um 15:45 schrieb SuStel:
Are there any rules governing behavior on this list (besides "about or in Klingon")? Any punishments? I can't find any. If there are, I would like to invoke them against Lieven.
Too bad some people cannot handle jokes marked with a smiley.
Do'Ha' tlhaQbe' 'op nuv. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
lieven:
We have had problems with that already when it comes to direct objects (cf. yIghojmoH)
What's the problem with {yIghojmoH} ? On 6 Jul 2017 10:32 pm, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 06.07.2017 um 21:07 schrieb SuStel:
There sure is an example against this:
I was talking abut canon phrases as an example.
TKD's explicit pronouncement that *-be' *is not used with imperatives.
true.
Maybe Okrand meant it only can't be used to negate the sense of /do this!/
but he didn't say that.
That how I read it: commands are "do it" and to say "don't" use {-Qo'}
What we can be sure of is that {HIleghmoHbe'} is forbidden, because the
-be' negates the command {HIleghmoH}, so we need -Qo' here.
So how about **yIta'vIpbe'?*
What about it? It seems clear to me: yIta'vIpQo'
TKD doesn't say you replace *-be'* with *-Qo'.*
It doesn't use the verb "replace", but it says /The suffix {-be'} cannot be used with imperative verbs. For imperatives, the following suffix is required: {-Qo'} "don't!, won't"/
It makes perfect, logical sense. But it's forbidden by TKD. Until such
time as Okrand gives us an unambiguous example,
True.
After some thinking about that, I believe the problem is not so much within the -be' suffix, but more with the -moH. We have had problems with that already when it comes to direct objects (cf. yIghojmoH)
TKD says that be' cannot be used with "imperative verbs". Now taking this literally, I think that we have looked at the -moH part too closely. When giving a negative command, Qo' is used, but a verb with -moH makes it two "verbs" (or actions), where the "cause" is seen as an action, and this one is not negative.
Well, nevertheless, we won't know without asking Maltz.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 06.07.2017 um 21:48 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
lieven:
We have had problems with that already when it comes to direct objects (cf. yIghojmoH)
What's the problem with {yIghojmoH} ?
It's the general problem that with a verb with -moH, it's not so clear who is the recipient of the action. compare {loD vIghojmoH} "I teach the man" {Hol vIghojmoH} "I teach a language" and now say "I teach the man Klingon". The clearest answer is {loDvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}, but isn't the {loD} the one who does {ghoj}? Interesting, isn't it? :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On Jul 7, 2017, at 10:06, Lieven wrote: {loD vIghojmoH} "I teach the man" {Hol vIghojmoH} "I teach a language"
and now say "I teach the man Klingon".
The clearest answer is {loDvaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}, but isn't the {loD} the one who does {ghoj}?
It's worth pointing out that to a Russian speaker, the "obvious" construction would be the opposite one: tlhIngan HolvaD loD vIghojmoH Compare with the Russian: Я учу мужчину клингонскому I-NOM teach man-ACC Klingon-DAT -SapIr
On 6 July 2017 at 21:07, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/6/2017 2:54 PM, Lieven wrote:
TKD does not explicitely prohibit THIS example, it prohibits using -be' in the puporse of a negative imperative.
TKD says "The suffix -be' cannot be used with imperative verbs." It does not draw the distinction you are making. It does explicitly prohibit this example. Whether or not that's what Okrand meant is another story.
It doesn't actually *explicitly* rule out the distinction. That's something you're reading into it. At issue is what "used with" means. You interpret it to mean "used anywhere within the same verb". Another Interpretation is that using a negation suffix "with" an imperative verb means to negate the whole verb (that is, "with" is not identical to "in"). TKD also says that when {-'egh} and {-chuq} are used, the prefix must show "no object", but we know that's not true when the verb also has {-moH}. In some places, TKD seems to treat verbs with {-moH} as if {-moH} hides the prefixes before it. -- De'vID
On 7/7/2017 6:09 AM, De'vID wrote:
At issue is what "used with" means. You interpret it to mean "used anywhere within the same verb". Another Interpretation is that using a negation suffix "with" an imperative verb means to negate the whole verb (that is, "with" is not identical to "in").
Fair enough. As I've said, I don't think using *-be'* outside of the commanding part of the word is an unreasonable thing to ask for. But I do claim that "used with" meaning "in the word" is a MUCH more obvious and natural interpretation than "that part of the sense of the word that tells someone to do something." If Okrand meant that, he didn't say it well... or at all. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:53 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/7/2017 6:09 AM, De'vID wrote:
At issue is what "used with" means. You interpret it to mean "used anywhere within the same verb". Another Interpretation is that using a negation suffix "with" an imperative verb means to negate the whole verb (that is, "with" is not identical to "in").
Fair enough. As I've said, I don't think using *-be'* outside of the commanding part of the word is an unreasonable thing to ask for. But I do claim that "used with" meaning "in the word" is a MUCH more obvious and natural interpretation than "that part of the sense of the word that tells someone to do something." If Okrand meant that, he didn't say it well... or at all.
There are quite a few things that aren't said well, or at all, in The Klingon Dictionary. That's even made explicit in the introduction to the "grammatical sketch". But without *ex cathedra* clarifications or clear examples of usage that goes against TKD's strict pronouncements, we're usually well served to be as conservative as possible. On the other hand, when I'm speaking Klingon, I'm going to be following the rules in my head, not the ones in the book. Most of those head-rules match the book-rules perfectly, but some of them are emergent rather than explicit, and some of them potentially will differ from the book-rules in a few edge cases. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 7 July 2017 at 15:53, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/7/2017 6:09 AM, De'vID wrote:
At issue is what "used with" means. You interpret it to mean "used anywhere within the same verb". Another Interpretation is that using a negation suffix "with" an imperative verb means to negate the whole verb (that is, "with" is not identical to "in").
Fair enough. As I've said, I don't think using -be' outside of the commanding part of the word is an unreasonable thing to ask for. But I do claim that "used with" meaning "in the word" is a MUCH more obvious and natural interpretation than "that part of the sense of the word that tells someone to do something." If Okrand meant that, he didn't say it well... or at all.
MO has clarified this at the qep'a' and in a message to Lieven: https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/qepa-chamah-losdic... (on the last page, titled "Other 5") http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170720.html He did, in fact, mean that {-be'} can't be used to negate a command, but can otherwise appear in an imperative, so TKD didn't explain this very well. (Those links have already been posted here but I'm replying to this thread so that someone following just this thread on the mailing list or the archive will see the answer.) -- De'vID
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
The be' with imperative restriction may have been copied from Latin, where for "do not fear!", the obvious "non time" is wrong, and "ne time" is dialectal and poetic, and the usual classical prose form is "noli timere" = "be unwilling to fear". ----Original message----
From : mihkoun@gmail.com Date : 06/07/2017 - 16:14 (GMTST) To : tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject : [tlhIngan Hol] Imperatives and {-be'} Apologising once more in advance for quoting boQwI', I need to bring this up, because there I read that.. "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 !" ? qunnoq
participants (7)
-
Alan Anderson -
Anthony Appleyard -
De'vID -
kechpaja＠comcast.net -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel