[87262] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Checking understanding of -be'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Sat Nov 28 00:50:37 2009
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <1F830A908BC34D1BBB03D65EA0A37ECE@juH.Seruqtuq.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:47:26 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Nov 27, 2009, at 8:42 PM, "Seruq" <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> 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
I concur. This is a logical way to think of it.
Canon does not always support the logical conclusion, however. I can't
think of any examples that confirm this use of a negated {-lu'}.
-- ghunchu'wI
>
