tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 26 05:50:44 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: KLBC: "tu'lu'" with plurals

jatlh 'Iwvan:

> David Trimboli wrote:
> > jatlh qoror:
> > > I have a question.  When "tu'lu'" is used with plurals, shouldn't it
> > > be "lutu'lu'?" Or has it evolved into a relatively independent 
term?[...]
> > Yes, we believe that {tu'lu'} is a semi-independent verb.  After all,
> > in the very first example for it, which is meant to illustrate its use,
> > we see {puqpu' tu'lu'}.
> 
> And in the paragraph which introduces {tu'lu'} it says specifically
> `a third-person singular subject pronoun'.

Ah, yes.  Okrand sometimes calls verb prefixes "pronouns," doesn't he?  This 
begins to explain things.  The conclusion is that {tu'lu'} IS a fossilized 
construction, rather like {rIntaH} in that way.

> > SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'   (TKW)
> > (Notice that if you think of this as {tu'} + {-lu'}, you're negating
> > {-lu'}, which doesn't seem to make any sense.  However, if {tu'lu'}
> > is a distinct verb, then you're negating this verb.)
> 
> The scope of {-be'} shouldn't be restricted to the preceding morpheme:
> it follows the concept being negated (_tKD_:46), which may consist of
> more than one suffixes and/or the verb stem.  {tu'lu'be'} amounts to
> `it is not the case that [someone finds ...]', thus `no one finds ...'.
> 
> > We also know that {tu'lu'} can also act as {tu'} + {-lu'}:
> > 
> > QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj   (PK)
> > (Admittedly, this is a toast, and is possibly subject to special
> > grammatical rules.  If that's what is happening here, it's rather
> > funny: the special grammatical rules are making the sentence look
> > almost like what it is supposed to be!)
> 
> Actually, {tu'be'lu'} comes across as `someone doesn't find ...' (but
> perhaps someone else does), so I do hope there are special grammatical
> rules at work here.

But "someone doesn't find" is exactly the correct thing to say.  I don't think 
keeping {-be'} on the verb indicates that this action applies only to one 
"someone."  {-lu'} means indefinite subject.  It's not quantum mechanics which 
says, when observed, the thing you're talking about suddenly takes a specific 
position and momentum.  {tu'be'lu'jaj} "may the action of not finding be done 
(by the general subject)."

> > I don't believe Mark Okrand has ever used {lutu'lu'}.  I cannot find
> > any such reference.  If you use it, it will be logically correct, but
> > since we don't see it, I suspect it may not be used.
> 
> I suspect that would have the literal sense of `are found, discovered'.

Certainly it can be used that way; there is nothing preventing one from using 
{tu'} as any other verb.

> Talking of leaving out {lu-}, what do people think of {mIch 'elpu'
> jay'!}, glossed as `They've entered the #$%@ sector!' (_tKD:178_)?

Qaghqa'ba' Okrand.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97233.6

Back to archive top level