tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 10 05:45:06 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -lu'be'
According to R.B Franklin:
>
> wot vIchenmoHDI' <-lu'be'> vIjatlhlaH'a' 'ej <-lu'be'> vIjatlhlaHchugh vaj
> <pagh> vIHechba' 'e' yajlaH'a' vay'? <nulegh pagh> <nulegh pagh ghot> joq
> rur'a' <wIleghlu'be'>?
>
> yoDtargh
bIlugh 'e' vIHar. qechvam vIQubta'be', 'ach DaH vIyajchu'.
mojaQ Hut neH tlha'laHbe' //-be'// 'ej mojaQ Hut 'oHbe'
//-lu'//'e', vaj lughnIS //-lu'be'//. DIvI' Hol jatlhlu'chugh
vaj "We are not seen," jalthlu' je. toH, //wIleghlu'be'// rur
//wIleghbe'lu'//, qar'a'?
For those with Fed Standard as a primary language:
yoDtargh asks if it is okay to use the suffix combination
{-lu'be'}. {-lu'} indicates an indefinite subject and is
typically translated either with the subject as the generic
"one" or as the passive voice. Thus, {wIleghlu'} is translated
as either "One sees us," or "We are seen," which essentially
mean the same thing.
Since the rule is that {-be'} can follow any suffix not of Type
9, then, since {-lu'} is Type 5, it is legal to follow {-lu'}
with {-be'}. yoDtargh then suggests that it means the subject
changes from "one" to "nobody", such that {wIleghlu'be'} means
"Nobody sees us."
I agreed and suggested that this is also translatable as "We
are not seen," which is also a legitamate translation of
{wI'leghbe'lu'}. Essentially, I'm pointing out the semantic
similarity between, "Nobody sees us," and "One/everybody
doesn't see us."
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |