tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 28 15:41:57 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: cheghta' muHwI' !
- From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: cheghta' muHwI' !
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 97 22:40:32 UT
ghItlh SuStel:
>What's the negative of an indefinite subject?
If, as TDK p. 39 says, the verb tu'lu' = someone/something finds..., then
tu'lu'be' = no one/nothing finds...
And tu'be'lu' = someone/something doesn't find.... (perhaps more aptly seen as
One doesn't find...???)
>tu'be'lu'
>{-be'} is negating {tu'}
>
>tu'lu'be'
>{-be'} is negating {tu'lu'} -- the whole thing.
>
>I can think of no good reason that {-lu'} itself should ever need to be
>negated. {-lu'} is often translated "someone," but it's not a specific
>someone. That's {vay'}, the negation of which is {pagh}.
Agreed. But that's not what I meant. Your analysis above matches mine - I
think you see the same thing I do, just perhaps in a different way.
>{QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj} "May someone not find tribbles at your
>coordinates." This doesn't mean that someone else should, it is a wish that
>any subject, the general subject, not find tribbles there.
Agreed still. I merely wanted to say this:
tu'be'lu' = There are no..., in the sense that an observer in normal
activities or in a casual survey of the area won't turn up any Object.
tu'lu'be' = There are no..., in the sense that an observer will not find the
Object - it is not able to be found.
Again, I think we agree!
Qermaq