tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 27 17:52:56 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Checking understanding of -be'
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Checking understanding of -be'
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:51:45 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=WVZDTxW5ECHDp8N4lCvY8/kx2FjEqMxrgmymbgIAfgg=; b=UR0dVZJNTY9H8xvKPpwxp1rCrVvL7QuzD6WZb8fsOG40Ehe63UAxOIVc2DNRQ+LVX5 FnzIxOpIuQ/+clmhH0ljjy0DDGOne/lMF0/PlDb1ApZ9oYOyAGn6bCSAz/892cNyEny7 HhGrc0JuMU4il73chX0iFgrd5sPmhNfbXzrBU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=ZtTK0uLBN19u4LIvINWlXZYW6lAa3D3lTS9VJDqEdoUvJmc9TuQdylXEVBOGqTjGBI q37mINQ+ls3szrDdm+ejB9R55yDyuQP4/40DfOC2ztKs3qmWirztH1SBPj38AM7Ls5jK yaGpOjdSo14mkoNT35xmJxBgImFncbhj0Dgqs=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 17:42, Seruq <[email protected]> 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...