Re: -lu' and -be', small aside on Paul Simon

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@hotmail.com>]

From: "DloraH" <DloraH@kli.org>
> > Can -lu' and -be' be used as -lu'be' to imply that there is no
> > subject for a particular action, or that nobody
> > does it? Perhaps an example will explain what I mean:
> > *Paul Simon* Sovlu'be'. noybe'.
> > No-one knows Paul Simon. He is not famous.
> >
> > noy *Paul Simon*. 'ach Sovbe'lu'.
> > Paul Simon is famous. Even so, some people do not know him.
> >
> > Is this usage possible? DuH'a' mu'tlheghmeyvam?
>
> As far as I know MO has not explicitly explained this, but what we know of
> suffix order, I agree with this.  This is how I have been using it.

I don't think it works.  /-lu'/ means "indefinite subject."  Does that mean
/-lu'be'/ means "definite subject"?  That doesn't make sense.

/-lu'/ doesn't mean "someone, the opposite of no one."  It means "indefinite
subject."

I think that /-lu'/ itself can't be negated.  You might put /-be'/ after it,
increasing the scope of /-be'/ to the entire verb rather than to just the
suffix (we've seen this done elsewhere).

loDvetlh Sovbe'lu'.
loDvetlh Sovlu'be'.
That man is not known.

I tend to prefer the former of these two.

SuStel
Stardate 2572.8