tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 31 22:23:01 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: cheghta' muHwI' !



[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


Back to archive top level