[99257] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] qep'a' Proverbs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv)
Sun Jul 27 07:57:44 2014
From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <lojmIttI7wI7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmNAZCnkCTHU3-pZ7Da8DsFO=5T8qMmhbFVpenoQFUOWVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:57:23 -0400
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
I disagree with your conclusion. I see {tu'be'lu'} to mean "one does not find" while {tu'lu'be'} means "no one finds". Semantically, one would be hard pressed to tell the difference, but they are both valid grammatical expressions without needing to make anything special out of {tu'lu'}.
Sent from my iPod
On Jul 27, 2014, at 5:00 AM, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Secrecy Proverb selected was:
>> 'Iw HIq yap tu'lu'be'
>> sufficient blood wine does not exist
>> submitted by 'angghal
>
> Interesting that this has {tu'lu'be'} instead of {tu'be'lu'}. Both
> forms are found in canon, though a strict reading of the grammar
> favours {tu'be'lu'} (since {-be'} immediately follows what it
> negates).
>
> We have previously:
> {SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'}
> {QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj}
>
> The new proverb provides more evidence that Klingon speakers may
> (occasionally, for unknown reasons) treat {tu'lu'} as one syntactical
> unit.
>
> --
> De'vID
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
