Re: "to be" or "not to be"

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Scotto Hlad <scott.hlad@...> wrote:

> Precisely what I was thinking. Thank you!
>
> I thought it would be interesting the case of how strong would deny
> something using a negative copula. If combined with a negative particle,
> one could have the positive copula with the negative particle, then the
> negative copula, then the negative particle plus the negative copula.
>
> Example
>
> Child #1: You're silly.
> Child #2: I NEG.PARTICLE COPULA.
> Child #1: Yes you are.
> Child #2: I  NEG.COPULA!!
> Child #1: You are too!
> Child #2: I NEG.PARTICLE NEG.COPULA!!!
>
> Double negatives notwithstanding, emphasis would be come higher each
> time. Normally, one would simply use the negative copula, but this
> special case seems interesting to me.
>
> Can you name a few of the languages that do have the negative copula?
>
> Scotto
>
>
It slipped my mind, but Korean does have another verb that is exactly the
negative copula! I kept racking my brains for it when I last replied but
couldn't remember. Now I do. The word's "anida".

So, your example conversation would be

A: Pabo-eyo! (Silly-person.COP)
B: Aniyeo! (No)
A: Keuraeyo! (That is so!)
B: Anieyo! (NEGCOP)
A: Keuraecchago!
B: Aniyeo, anieyo! (No, NEGCOP!)

Note, of course, the confusing similarity between "aniyeo" and "anieyo" (a
conjugated form of "anida") when Romanised. When spoken or written in
Korean, the problem disappears.

Eugene

Reply