tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 27 17:44:11 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Checking understanding of -be'

Seruq (

> >>> 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'>?

That's how I've always used it.
-be'lu', one does not V
-lu'be', not one does V

> With what we know now, I'd be 
> >> inclined to accept {-be'lu'} and {-lu'be'} as meaning the 
> same thing, 

At a convention I said something using either -be'lu' or -lu'be', I don't remember, and MO said that
the two do have different meanings, but the event we were attending was about to start so he didn't
go into detail.

> There is no indication anywhere that {-lu'be'} means "not 
> anyone at all" 
> or "no one." There is a word for "no one": {pagh}. 

In that case we also have a word for "someone".


Back to archive top level