tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 23 07:23:23 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
{-lu'} (Re: question about 'ar)
- From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
- Subject: {-lu'} (Re: question about 'ar)
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:27:43 -0800
- Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science
- References: <[email protected]>
Marian Schwartz wrote:
> Well, I just thought of something for the second sentence, but I have
> no idea for the first: Sopbe'nISlu'.
That's a good way to deal with not being able to express impossibility
({-laHbe'} and {-be'nIS} being logically equivalent), but with {-lu'}
meaning what it does, I wonder if this really says what it's meant to.
Sopbe'nISlu' --> Sopbe'nIS vay' ... 'ach chaq Sopbe'nISbe' latlh'e'.
> Also, it keeps popping up in my head that Okrand meant to say that,
> because they didn't have much to do with each other, -lu' and -laH
> *could* be used together, and he was just thinking that it was a
> peculiar one but reversed it.
He can't have meant to say that, because the incompatibility of {-lu'}
and {-laH} is the only reason they're both Type 5.
> After all, you don't need cautioning to use -chu' and -law' together.
You might. They don't have much to do with one another either. Despite
what is said in the beginning of _tKD_ 4.2.6, {-chu'} refers to the
quality of the action. Now, if {yajchu'} meant `he clearly understands'
rather than `he understands clearly', then it would be referring to
the speaker's degree of certainty.
--'Iwvan
--
"reH Sov yInej 'ej Dap yImuS, <dOstI bA mardom-e dAnA nEkO-st,
jagh val qaq law' jup QIp qaq puS" do^sman-e dAnA beh az nAdAn dOst>
(Sheikh Muslihuddin Abu Muhammad Abdullah Saadi Shirazi)
Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria <http://www.math.acad.bg/~iad/>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences