tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 12 12:30:37 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'

DloraH ([email protected])

• From: DloraH <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: -be'lu' vs. -lu'be'
• Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:37:03 +0000
• User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs

> > {tu'be'lu'} gives me more of a feeling that the un-named entity does
> > not find anything, rather than a lack of such entities.
>
> Really?  Again, our single example of {tu'be'lu'}:
>
>   QuvlIjDaq yIHmey tu'be'lu'jaj
>   May your coordinates be free of tribbles! PK
>
> Sounds to me like a wish for a complete absence of tribbles rather than
> just not finding any where you happened to look.

But tribbles DO exist.


To me:
tu'be'lu' negates the "discovering".  An entity does exist.
tu'lu'be' negates the entity. Like in the well know question, "If a tree falls
in the forest but there is no-one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" 
There is a lack of entity to do the hearing, instead of an entity present but
does not hear it.


DloraH

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

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: pIch (v)
• 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