tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 30 04:05:31 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -lu' and -be', small aside on Paul Simon
lab SuStel:
>From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
>> > 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.
then maybe something different makes sense:
<verb>lu'be' maybe doesn't mean <verb>(lu'be') but (<verb>lu')be'.
so /Sovbe'lu'/ means "one doesn't know him.
and /Sovlu'be'/ means "it's not true that someone knows him"
but i don't know whether /-be'/ can negate the whole word and not
only the element that it follows.
>/-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'.
one doesn't know that man.
>loDvetlh Sovlu'be'.
it's not true that one knows that man. -> that man is not known.
>That man is not known.
>
>I tend to prefer the former of these two.
i tend to prefer the first one. (well, me.)
>SuStel
>Stardate 2572.8
tulwI',
sts.