ghItlh ~mark: > 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'". We also have "quvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj" from CK (or maybe PK), so Okrand has gone both ways with -be' on tu'lu'. Huj. pagh