tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 27 17:52:56 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Checking understanding of -be'

Christopher Doty (suomichris@gmail.com)



On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 17:42, Seruq <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> That's how I've always used it.
> -be'lu', one does not V
> -lu'be', not one does V

Okay; that's certainly what it seemed like to me from Okrand's description.

>> 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".

Yeah, I think the indication is that Okrand indicates that <-be'>
negates whatever immediately precedes it.  Again, though, I have seen
much of the canon sources (did get TKW in the mail today, though!), so
maybe the distinction ends up not really holding up...






Back to archive top level