[Tlhingan-hol] Canon for answering negative questions

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh]

My problem with this interpretation of {HIja’} and {ghobe’} is that different people will say with absolute confidence that a yes or no answer means exactly the opposite of what other people say it does. In the Shakespeare speech, he is saying, “Do we not bleed?” as a kind of incredulous reaction to the suggestion that we are below the threshold of beings one should empathize with. He’s saying, “Are you so bold as to suggest that we do not bleed?”

So, if you answer “Yes” or “No”, are you answering the part about whether or not you are so bold, or are you answering the part about whether or not we bleed? In general, I think this is the kind of question best answered with a clear and complete statement, instead of bothering with a “yes” or “no” that can be so easily misinterpreted.

When you negate the verb, you make the question a lousy yes/no question, even if it sounds like one.

It’s like if you are driving, and you are at an intersection and you turn to your friend who knows the way better than you do, if you ask, “We turn left here, right?” and your friend answers, “Right,” then you and your friend are both behaving in a manner indistinguishable from that of idiots. You don’t care enough about the question to ask it in a way that the answer is likely to be meaningful and clear, and your friend doesn’t care enough about giving you meaningful information to answer it unambiguously.

I’ve been one of those people, turning left with confirmed confidence as the friend excitedly yells, “NO! RIGHT! TURN RIGHT!"

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably



On May 4, 2014, at 11:14 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Qov:
> > What canon do we have indicating whether the answer to a negative question like :
> >
> > 'umbe''a' loDHom?
> >
> > would be
> >
> > HIja’, ‘um.
> >
> > or
> > ghobe’, ‘um.
> 
> I don't have any canon, but what reason is there to think it wouldn't be {HIja', 'umbe'} to begin with? The answer to {'umchoH'a'} is {HIja', 'umchoH}, and the answer to {belHa''a'} is {HIja', belHa'}, etc. I can't think of any reason {-be'} should behave differently than any other suffix in how it interacts with {-'a'}.
> 
> Qov:
> > All I can think of is cheDuQchugh mareghbe’’a’? which is of course rhetorical.
> 
> ghobe', mareghbej.
> 
> -- 
> De'vID
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140504/42aee297/attachment-0001.html>