tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 10 15:11:56 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

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

ngabwI' ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'


> 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.

FWIW, I personally don't like {tu'lu'be'}. It comes across, to me, as 
meaning something like "no one finds", which would be better expressed as 
{tu' pagh}. Oddly enough, {tu'lu'be'} doesn't grate against my ears until I 
think about it, mostly because I tend to think of it as a verb with only one 
element. Perhaps that's what happened to MO when he coined the only canon 
example of {tu'lu'be'}? {vuDwIj neH 'oH}

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org
HovpoH 702150.0

Back to archive top level