[87260] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Checking understanding of -be'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Fri Nov 27 20:53:28 2009
In-Reply-To: <1F830A908BC34D1BBB03D65EA0A37ECE@juH.Seruqtuq.net>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:51:45 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
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...
