[87259] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: Checking understanding of -be'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seruq)
Fri Nov 27 20:44:43 2009
From: "Seruq" <seruq@bellsouth.net>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:42:49 -0600
In-Reply-To: <4B1074A3.8010906@trimboli.name>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> >>> 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".
DloraH
