tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 10 08:59:45 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
- From: idstewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
- Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:27:40 -0400
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
[email protected] wrote:
>Here are the examples I found in canon of {-be'lu'} (8 occurrences) vs.
>{-lu'be'} (1 occurrence). I suspect that {-be'lu'} is more common because it more
>clearly negates the verb it is attached to, whereas in {-lu'be'}, the {-be'}
>may be negating the bare suffix {-lu'}, which doesn't make much sense to me,
>or it could be negating the whole verb complex (including {-lu'}) that precedes
>the {-be'}.
>
[examples snipped]
In many of the terran languages I have studied (most notably German and
Scots Gaelic), there are two ways to express a negative statement. The
first is a positive assertion of a negative fact (I am [not old]). The
second is a negative assertion of a positive fact (I [am not] old).
Perhaps -be'lu' and -lu'be' is the tlhIngan equivelant?
Just a thought...
'yen