tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 26 00:41:08 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: "tu'lu'" with plurals
- From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: "tu'lu'" with plurals
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:44:04 -0800
- Organization: Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science
- References: <[email protected]>
David Trimboli wrote:
> jatlh qoror:
> > I have a question. When "tu'lu'" is used with plurals, shouldn't it
> > be "lutu'lu'?" Or has it evolved into a relatively independent term?[...]
> Yes, we believe that {tu'lu'} is a semi-independent verb. After all,
> in the very first example for it, which is meant to illustrate its use,
> we see {puqpu' tu'lu'}.
And in the paragraph which introduces {tu'lu'} it says specifically
`a third-person singular subject pronoun'.
> SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be' (TKW)
> (Notice that if you think of this as {tu'} + {-lu'}, you're negating
> {-lu'}, which doesn't seem to make any sense. However, if {tu'lu'}
> is a distinct verb, then you're negating this verb.)
The scope of {-be'} shouldn't be restricted to the preceding morpheme:
it follows the concept being negated (_tKD_:46), which may consist of
more than one suffixes and/or the verb stem. {tu'lu'be'} amounts to
`it is not the case that [someone finds ...]', thus `no one finds ...'.
> We also know that {tu'lu'} can also act as {tu'} + {-lu'}:
>
> QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj (PK)
> (Admittedly, this is a toast, and is possibly subject to special
> grammatical rules. If that's what is happening here, it's rather
> funny: the special grammatical rules are making the sentence look
> almost like what it is supposed to be!)
Actually, {tu'be'lu'} comes across as `someone doesn't find ...' (but
perhaps someone else does), so I do hope there are special grammatical
rules at work here.
> I don't believe Mark Okrand has ever used {lutu'lu'}. I cannot find
> any such reference. If you use it, it will be logically correct, but
> since we don't see it, I suspect it may not be used.
I suspect that would have the literal sense of `are found, discovered'.
Talking of leaving out {lu-}, what do people think of {mIch 'elpu'
jay'!}, glossed as `They've entered the #$%@ sector!' (_tKD:178_)?
--'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