tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 24 16:45:10 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lu- (KLBC)
Qov wrote:
> I know charghwI' knows his {-lu'} better than that, so I'm going to
> step away from the 'objectless' question and explain plain old {-lu'}
> to anyone who has been confused by all this ranting.
>[...]
> For practice, rewrite these sentences so they have the same object,
> but an indefinite subject, using {-lu'}. Careful! I've included some
> trick ones.
>
> DuparHa' vay'.
> nIbejlaw' nuvpu'.
> vay' luleghbej.
> lIqopta' vay'
> chaH HoHnIS vay'
> megh neHqu' vay'
> 'uQ vutlaH vay'
> De'wI' tI'lI' vay'
> veS tIvbe'law'taH roghvaH
> muQopmoH Qu'
OK. I tried it:
Duparha' vay' => Daparha'lu'
nIbejlaw' nuvpu' => Dabejlu'law'
vay' luleghbej => vay' leghbejlu'
lIqopta' vay' => boqoplu'ta'
chaH HoHnIS vay' => luHoHnISlu'
megh neHqu' vay' => megh neHqu'lu'
'uQ vutlaH vay' => <-laH> and <-lu'> can't be used on one word
De'wI' tI'lI' vay' => De'wI' tI'lu'lI'
veS tIvbe'law'taH roghvaH => I wouldn't use <lu'> here 'cause it would change the
sense of the sentence a bit. But I think it would be <veS tIvlu'be'law'taH>. I
like this better than <veS tIvbe'lu'law'taH> for (at least in my beginner's
opinion) it indicates rather that *no one* is enjoying the war than a special
*someone*.
muQopmoH Qu' => >I wouldn't use <-lu'> here either, for the same reason as above.
If I did use it, it would probably be <vIQopmoHlu'>
I hope, it's not all wrong.
HovqIj