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

[qunnoQ HoD]

> OTOH, negating the adverbial

nuq 'oH <OTOH> ?

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:39 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Quvar:
>>> chotIchmo' jIQeHbe'
>
> SapIr:
>> 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)".
>
> I interpret it the same way as you do, though I immediately understood
> the intended meaning as well.
>
> Quvar:
>> 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?
>
> I can't think of one, but maybe someone else will.
>
> The one canon example of {-be'} scoping over more than I expected
> which comes to mind is: {Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'}. The
> English translation of this is given as "Eat everything or you will
> die without honour."
>
> Now, clearly, {batlh bIHeghbe'} is "with honour, you will not die". If
> you take it completely literally, it's saying to the listener, "you
> won't die, and your not dying is honourable".
>
> OTOH, negating the adverbial to get {batlhHa' bIHegh} "you will die
> dishonourably", is perhaps too strong a sentiment.
>
> TKD says only that {-be'} follows the concept it negates. The scope of
> the negation is not completely clear, though if {-be'} immediately
> follows a suffix, it's negating only that suffix, as the {-vIp}
> example illustrates.
>
> The {batlh bIHeghbe'} example shows that {-be'} can perhaps negate
> more than just the verb, if the meaning makes sense in context. That
> is, {batlh bIHeghbe'} can mean either {(batlh bIHegh)be'} "you will
> die without honour" or {batlh bI(Heghbe')} "you will not die, with
> honour", and only context can determine which.
>
> SapIr:
>> 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'}?
>
> I can't think of one.
>
> --
> De'vID
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol