[87261] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Checking understanding of -be'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Fri Nov 27 21:00:37 2009
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:58:11 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <1F830A908BC34D1BBB03D65EA0A37ECE@juH.Seruqtuq.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
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
