tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 10 11:05:49 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'

Lieven L. Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
• Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:19:32 +0200
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• Organization: qepHom.de
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887

Am Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:27:40 -0400 hat idstewart 
<[email protected]> geschrieben:

> 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?

Yes, I think that somehow it is. Since -be' is a rover, you may chose where 
you put it, while it always refers to the preceeding verb

{tu'lu'} "one finds"
{tu'lu'be'} "not one does find"
= is is not a fact that someone finds

{tu'be'lu'} "one does [not find]"
= it's a fact that somebody does not find

tlhIngan tu'lu''a'?
ghobe'. tlhIngan tu'lu'be'.

tlhIngan tu'be'lu''a'?
HIja'. tlhIngan tu'be'lu'.

{tu'lu'} is a bad example to explain this, because it is too often used as 
"there is" instead of its literal meaning.
Using other verbs would make it clear.

Quvar.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
    • From: "ngabwI'" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
    • From: idstewart <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
• Next by Date: Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
• Previous by thread: Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
• Next by thread: Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level