[Tlhingan-hol] Scope of Klingon Negation (was: Re: Religious terminology)

[kechpaja]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 22:10:21 +0100
Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
<snip>
> chotIchmo' jIQeHbe'

It took me a while to interpret this sentence, because I kept wanting to read it as "Because you insulted me, I am not angry", when what Lieven was trying to say (AFAICT) was "I am not angry because you insulted me", i.e. "It is false that (I am angry because you insulted me)". 

Do we have any canonical examples in which the {be'} suffix's meaning can scope over both the verb to which it is attached, and a clause subordinated by a type 9 suffix? 

If we don't have such canonical examples, is there a canonical construction using another type 9 suffix, or would we just need to say {chotIch, 'ach jIQeHbe'}? 

-SapIr

-- 
kechpaja <kechpaja at comcast.net>