tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 27 12:58:00 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lu- (KLBC)
ghItlh Qov:
> }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*.
>
> I would leave the -be' on the verb stem. The thing that is negated is
> enjoyment. You're saying "one did not enjoy" not ... I can't even think what
> {-lu'be'} would mean.
I was thinking of Latin here:
The Latin "neque quisquam" (literally: "and not someone") is usually translated
as "and no one".
But I see it's confusing when I try to do this in tlhIngan Hol.
HovqIj