tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 27 13:18:46 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: cheghta' muHwI' !
- From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: cheghta' muHwI' !
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 97 20:14:40 UT
ghItlh SuStel:
>Toasts follow special grammatical rules, and some of them are pretty old
>(especially since we now know that tribbles were eradicated a long time ago).
>In {QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj}, it's conceivable that {tu'be'lu'} got frozen
>in that form.
>
>There's a proverb, {SuvwI' qan tu'lu'be'} "There are no old warriors." This
>shows that we can also put the {-be'} afterwards.
OK - Theory Time - everyone can feel free to rip this to shreds...
If -be' negates the element it follows, then tu'lu'be' and tu'be'lu' would
both be translatable as There aren't. But the 'actual' meanings are still:
DujwIjDaq yIHmey lutu'be'lu' = Someone does not find tribbles on my ship.
DujwIjDaq yIHmey lutu'lu'be' = No one finds tribbles on my ship.
The examples of tu'lu' above yield to this analysis well.
QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj = May someone not find tribbles at your
coordinates.
SuvwI' qan tu'lu'be' = No one finds old warriors.
The first expresses a hope that tribbles will not be encountered, not that a
search will be undertaken or anything - one simply won't come across any. The
second implies that no matter how hard you look, you cannot find an old
warrior.
"Someone doesn't find" (tu'be'lu') seems to mean that in the regular course of
events, the object will not be encountered. "No one finds" (tu'lu'be')
expresses conviction that even when scrutiny is used, the object will not be
found.
As for lutu'lu' ranking with *whom* in difficulty, I find neither especially
difficult to remember. Tell me to whom I need to explain this!!!
Qermaq