tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 27 14:35:23 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Checking understanding of -be'

Christopher Doty (suomichris@gmail.com)



Just wanted to see if my understanding of -be' as a rover jives with y'all's...

If, e.g., someone walked into a room filled with nonsmoking signs, but
which nonetheless smelled of cigarette smoke, one might say

leghbe'lu'
"Someone didn't see (the signs)"

That is, there is a someone, although unknown, who didn't see something.

If we were talking about something that wasn't seen by anyone (see,
maybe, something "unseeable" like <qa'>), one might instead say:

leghlu'be'
"It isn't seen/one doesn't see it (maybe loosely even 'it is invisible')"

Is this "correct" use of <-be'>?

If we throw <-Ha'> into the mix, would something like

leghHa''eghmoH

mean "It disappeared" (lit., "made itself unseen)??  (I know there is
a verb for 'disappear', I'm just wondering about this in comparison to
the use of <-be'>...)

Chris






Back to archive top level