tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 31 22:23:01 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: cheghta' muHwI' !
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: cheghta' muHwI' !
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 97 02:38:41 UT
[email protected] on behalf of Neal Schermerhorn wrote:
> 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...???)
Again, "someone" and "no one" are *definite* subjects. {-lu'} does not *mean*
*someone*, it means "no specified subject."
tu'lu'
Finding/discovering is being done, but I'm not going to tell you by whom.
tu'be'lu'
Not finding/not discovering is being done, but I'm not going to tell you by
whom.
Now, with {tu'lu'be'}, the subject is STILL completely unspecified, so you not
negating the {-lu'}, you're negating the entire construction {tu'lu'}.
{tu'lu'be'}, the opposite of {tu'lu'}.
> 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.
I cannot see how you got this. You're not confusing {tu'} with {Sam}, are
you?
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97582.8