[tlhIngan Hol] [Spam] Re: {-be'} on {-lu'}.. seriously ?

Lieven L. Litaer levinius at gmx.de
Tue Jan 23 03:39:46 PST 2018


Summary before: I'm not saying that I'm right; This is my opinion.

Am 23.01.2018 um 11:50 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
> translation. Indeed I meant to say, that if we want to write "someone
> eats", and that someone is not unspecified (therefore we know who it
> is), then we will write that he (the subject) does the {Sop}. We won't
> write {Soplu'be'}.

Yes, {Soplu' Subject} doesnt make sense. If you know the subject, it's 
not indefinite. We also all agree that {Soplu'} and {Sop vay'} are very 
close in meaning. A big difference can bee seen in the english 
translation, which is used in TKD, where Okrand used passive voice: "Is 
eaten" vs. "someone eats".

> lieven:
> I'm afraid I can't understand this.
> {leghlu'} = someone unspecified sees
> {leghbe'lu'} = someone unspecified does not see
> {leghlu'be'} = not someone unspecified sees (someone sees, but that
> someone isn't unspecified). But if that is the case, if the one who
> sees isn't unspecified, then why not mention him ?

You do not understand because you try to translate literally, word by 
word, like a computer, repeating the suffixes like numbers. That doesn't 
work in Klingon.

> lieven:
>> {leghlu'be'} "the act of seeing does not happen"
> 
> According to your translation, the {-be'} doesn't negate only the
> {-lu'}; it negates the entire {leghlu'}. And I don't understand.. On
> what canon is this interpretation based ? On the {tu'lu'be'} only ?

No, my interpretation is not based only on the {tu'lu'be'}-example.
I don't focus on the rule that -be' negates the preceding suffix, I 
regard the whole thing and think of how -lu' changes the meaning of the 
subject.

Asking differently: How could one negate an indefinite subject?

> Please, don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to quarrel with you,

No problem, I enjoy a good discussion and I can live with being pointed 
at my errors.

> But I just think, that you're trying too hard to justify the erroneous
> choice of another, to use {-lu'be'}, instead of {-be'lu'}.

I would not try to explain someone else's mistakes, unless I think I'd 
do it the same way.

> lieven:
>> The cake standing there has been {Soplu'be'}
> 
> Again, here I understand "someone ate the cake, and that someone isn't
> unspecified".

Honestly, I do not known on what canon or rule my assumption is based, 
maybe it's just my feeling - I think that "Sprachgefühl" even is an 
English word.

There are several examples with {-lu'}, and each of them combined with 
{-be'} make me see them as the negation of the verb, not the suffix.

{batlh Daqawlu'be'} "You are not remembered with honor"


-- 
Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
http://www.klingonisch.de
http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list