tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 29 11:27:18 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: clarify?
- From: "Adrian (HurghwI')" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: clarify?
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 13:29:00 -0600
At 09:07 AM 11/29/96 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> > > Just an educated guess from a new veSwI'. (Warrior? Not in TKD.)
>> >
>> > Sure it is! Page 191. (You've got the 1992 edition with the white cover,
>> > right?)
>>
>> bIlughbe', jupwI'.
>> TKD nav 191 yInuDqa', SuStel!
>> <veSwI'> vItu'laHbe'.
>
>{translating}
>
>"You are not right, my friend.
>Re-examine page 191 of TKD, <SuStel>!"
>
>{/translating}
>
> Now, could someone shed some light on <vItu'laHbe'>? I recognize
>the <vI-> prefix, and the <-be'> suffix, but can't decipher <-tu'->, or
>decide if <-laH-> is supposed to be a suffix or <laH> (ability).
I hope I'm not intruding on your territory, SuStel, but . . .
<vItu'laHbe'> means "I can't find it." <tu'> is on TKD p.111.
You know that <laH> can't be "ability" because then it would be a noun, and
since that sentence needs a verb, <laH> must be the suffix to the verb <tu'>.
vI - tu' - laH - be'
I-it find can not
I can't find it!
-HurghwI'
Hovjaj 96913.9
| HurghwI' - Peregrine - Adrian
| http://www.jwp.bc.ca/peregrine
_|\_ email - [email protected]
/ / \ \ mIS yIjach, 'ej veS targhmey
,-\\ //\__ tIQeyHa'choHmoH!
/ __\\//___/
|/ `----`