tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 10 11:44:04 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tu'lu' vs. lutu'lu'

According to Jeremy Cowan:
> 
> On Fri, 9 Sep 1994, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> > We use "tu'lu'" pretty often, at least I do.  ... It occurred to me 
> > that "-lu'" requires a "lu-" prefix for plural objects, ... the PK 
> > phrase "to'baj 'uS lughoDlu'bogh" for "stuff toebadge legs."
> > Then I remembered a canon phrase from the phrasebook: naDev tlhInganpu'
> > tu'lu'.  Oh my.  Is this a typo in the phrasebook?

I've looked at this again and even in the grammar section,
Okrand gives {naDev puqpu' tu'lu'}. Again, plural object, but a
singular verb form. Or is it? Could it be that in this form,
{tu'lu'} is like {qar'a'} in that it refers to the previous
sentence as a whole? Instead of translating this as "Children
are found here," could this more literally mean, "One finds
THAT children are here."? The sentence is always singular.

Of course, this presumes that {naDev puqpu'} is a sentence.
There is no verb. Still, this sits alongside of {naDev jIHtaH}.
When you are saying that someone is in a place, do you really
need the pronoun? Just as the {'e'} pronoun has disappeared
from use with the verbs of speaking and {neH}, perhaps both it
and the pronouns for being in a place have disappeared from
{tu'lu'}. Both canon examples begin with {naDev}, after all...

>   Look at TKD, page 39, in the middle of the page... "When <the suffix -lu' 
> is> used with the verb tu' ... and a third-person singular subject 
> pronoun (0), the resulting verb form tu'lu' ... is often translated by English 
> there is.
>   Carefull there!  It doesn't say when the subject is third-person 
> singular.  It says, "when used with a third-person singular subject 
> pronoun."  Although it seems ungrammatical...when you want to say, "there 
> are," you use the null prefix.  As shown by the example given:
>                          naDev puqpu' tu'lu'
>   I would say use tu'lu to mean "there is/there are" and lutu'lu' to mean 
> "they are found" or proper variations there of.  tu' is a special word.  
> It can have a special meaning when it takes the null prefix.  tlhIngan 
> tu'lu' would mean "There is a Klingon."  And tu'lu' tlhIngan would mean "The 
> Klingon is found."

You were doing fine until you said THIS. {tu'lu' tlhIngan}
doesn't mean anything, unless you are saying, "It is found,
Klingon..." You can't have an explicit subject with {-lu'}.
That's the whole point of the suffix. "Indefinite subject". Get
it?

> Which brings up a question I've wondered for a long 
> time.  When using the word tu'lu' where does the noun go?  I have put the 
> noun after the verb because it matches the prefix that way, but TKD 
> doesn't really tell us what to do.  What are y'alls thoughts?
> 
> janSIy  }}:+D>

The NOUN is the OBJECT, which PRECEEDS {tu'lu'}. It is treated
like a passive subject in translation, but it is still the
object.

jIlugh tu'lu''a'?

"Does one find that I am right?"

charghwI'

Actually, after rereading this, I think I'm full of crap in
this one instance. To be honest, I don't have a clue what is
going on here, except that no noun follows {tu'lu'} in a normal
construction of the verb.

Back to archive top level