tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 29 12:06:15 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: clarify?
> > 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 . . .
...as long as I get an answer I can understand, I"m not picky. :)
> <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!
Ah, so <laH> (ability) has also been used as a verb suffix. OK,
this I can deal with.
BTW, to whomever wrote the original statement (I forget) -
<"warrior" vItu'laH>! Check again - it's in mine.
_________________________________________
/ _ \ \ ** Andrew Netherton **
\__)| "VENI, VIDI VINNIE" \ __ University of Waterloo
\ I came, I saw my cousin. |(_ \ Ontario, Canada
\_____________________________________\___/ (519) 885-2717