tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 02 12:12:18 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)
• Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 12:12:01 -0500
• References: <000101c1c0ca$0bf336e0$9d51e8cd@dlorah>

ja' DloraH:

> puqpu' lutu'lu' - there are children / children are found
> Who is the one that finds the children?  We don't care.  Our attention is on
> the children; we don't care who or what made the observation.  Indefinite
> subject.

Whatever happened to {tu'lu'} being the exception to adding {lu-}?  Captain
Krankor discussed it in "From the Grammarian's Desk" in HolQeD volume 7, number
3.  That was 3 and a half years ago.  Has new information come to us regarding
that since then?   Rather than re-type his words here I would ask you to refer
to it and get back to me.

QInteS

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)
    • From: "TPO" <[email protected]>
  • Re: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: cha'logh jabbI'IDmey vIlabpu'
• Next by Date: RE: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)
• Prev by thread: cha'logh jabbI'IDmey vIlabpu'
• Next by thread: RE: lu- (was Re: [KLBC] -lu' and -ghach)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level