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

[Stephan Schneider <sts@stephan-schneider.net>]

lab SuStel:

>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.

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.