tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 03 10:22:26 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lu- (KLBC)
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: lu- (KLBC)
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:20:55 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromQov on Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:47:38 -0800 (PST))
>Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:47:38 -0800 (PST)
>From: Qov <[email protected]>
>
>}veS tIvbe'law'taH roghvaH => I wouldn't use <lu'> here 'cause it would
>change }the
>}sense of the sentence a bit. But I think it would be <veS tIvlu'be'law'taH>. I
>}like this better than <veS tIvbe'lu'law'taH> for (at least in my beginner's
>}opinion) it indicates rather that *no one* is enjoying the war than a special
>}*someone*.
>
>I would leave the -be' on the verb stem. The thing that is negated is
>enjoyment. You're saying "one did not enjoy" not ... I can't even think what
>{-lu'be'} would mean.
Neither can I... which is why I suspect it would mean the same as
"-be'lu'". The meaning of "-lu'" is not subject to negation, really, with
any meaning other than negation of the whole verb, so I'd think that is
what it would mean.
Perhaps there would be a difference with...
lambe'choHlu'
lamchoHbe'lu'
lamchoHlu'be'
The first would mean "something becomes not-dirty" (something unspecified
gets clean, probably). The second, "something does not become dirty"
(something isn't *changing* its state of dirtiness). The third would
mean..., hrm, pretty much the same as the second. What I mean is that with
enough suffixes it might not be trivial that the -be' has the same meaning
after the -lu' as it does *immediately* before it, but I think it means
about the same as it would *somewhere* fairly obvious.
I seem to recall canon for this, a use of "tu'lu'be'." There it is. TKW
p.29: "SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'".
If I were really opposed to this I could probably still make a case against
it, but I'm not. And no, it's not weakness to be able to understand and
even partly agree with your opponent's case. More on that later.
~mark