tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 10 17:48:09 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: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:48:51 +0200
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• Organization: qepHom.de
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887

Am Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:36:18 -0400 hat ngabwI':

> 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}.

Okay, my opinion, I believe that MO did a mistake there, possibly. But it 
might be done on purpose also, I'm not sure, but I still see a difference 
between those two version.

Other thing, {tu'lu'be'} looks like negating the "verb" {tu'lu'} which 
means "there is".

tu'lu' + be' = "there is"+"not"
sounds a little worng I think, reminds me of {poSmoH}+{nIS}.

But it's still grammatical, so we must accept that ther *might* be a 
difference.

Quvar.
(too late to think more about this now. 'ej jIvumnIStaH - bwuark)

• References:
  • -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
    • From: idstewart <[email protected]>
  • Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
    • From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
  • Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
    • From: "ngabwI'" <[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