[87289] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Checking understanding of -be'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Mon Nov 30 13:52:59 2009
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A6011382A88275@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:49:46 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 07:58, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> TKW 48: The Klingon construction {tIvnISbe'} means "does not need to enjoy"; {tIvbe'nIS" would mean "needs to not enjoy", an utterly different concept.
This, coupled with what is said in TKD, make it pretty clear to me
that there is a difference between <-lu'be'> and <-be'lu'>, even if we
don't see examples in canon. There are also certainly cases where the
difference might be very subtle or unimportant; this is why I
constructed my examples as I did, with lots of context, to show that
there could be a difference in some places.
Consider:
> pujwI' HIvlu'chugh quvbe'lu'
> There is no honor in attacking the weak. TKW
It isn't clear in this case that the difference between <quvbe'lu'>
and <quvlu'be'> would be meaningful: "One doesn't" or "no one does."
It probably takes a context to highlight the difference (or to make it
relevant).
>
> {-lu'be'}:
>
> SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'
> There are no old warriors. TKW
>
> Hmm... I thought there was another example. This may be a colloquial variant of the more formally correct {tu'be'lu'}, which also occurs:
>
> QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj
> May your coordinates be free of tribbles! PK
>
> Perhaps some Klingons just add {-be'} to {tu'lu'} "there is/are" as if it were a fixed formula. We know that Klingons also omit the {-lu'} prefix in the plural:
>
> naDev tlhInganpu' tu'lu'
> There are Klingons around here. TKW
>
> At qep'a' loSDIch "Robyn Stewart's idea of {lutu'lu'} as 'the Klingon version of "whom"' got a nod and an explicit lack of contradiction [from Okrand]. {naDev tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} is grammatical, but the {lu-} is more often left off." (ghunchu'wI')
>
> "... in English, most people use the word 'who' when formally they should be using 'whom', much like most Klingons use the word {tu'lu'} when they should be using {lutu'lu'}. In other words, the more formally correct sentence is {tlhInganpu' lutu'lu'} though most Klingons most of the time would say {tlhInganpu' tu'lu'}." (charghwI')
>
> If this is so, then {-lu'be'} may not be productive on other verbs after all.
Yeah, I'm hesitant to make anything from <tu'lu'>, since verbs like
this tend to have special syntax, and this is clearly the case in
Klingon with the lack of <-lu'>. Spanish, for example, does exactly
this: "There is kids," because the verb "there is" has become so
lexicalized. In past tenses, the plural is technically correct, but
pretty much no one uses it.
