tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 27 17:59:53 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Checking understanding of -be'

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Checking understanding of -be'
• Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:58:11 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)

Seruq wrote:

>> 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".

True, and Okrand has used it as a way to get around the conflict between 
{-lu'} and {-laH}: qeylIS lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' "Kahless the Unforgettable."

-- 
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush

• Follow-Ups:
  • Question for KLBC - My hand hurts
    • From: Philip Scott <[email protected]>
  • "in (language)"
    • From: <[email protected]>

• References:
  • RE: Checking understanding of -be'
    • From: "Seruq" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Checking understanding of -be'
• Next by Date: Re: Checking understanding of -be'
• Previous by thread: Re: Checking understanding of -be'
• Next by thread: Question for KLBC - My hand hurts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level