[87252] in tlhIngan-Hol
Checking understanding of -be'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Fri Nov 27 17:35:55 2009
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:32:57 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
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
