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

mayqel qunenoS mihkoun at gmail.com
Tue Jan 23 00:54:27 PST 2018

Recently, I saw in a sentence written by an expert the {-be'} used on

I won't say who wrote it, nor will I quote the exact sentence, since these
details are of no importance.

Suffice it to say, that it was on a transitive verb (not that if the verb
was intransitive, it would make any difference).

So, I was wondering how on earth, this sentence could be correct.

If I wrote {Soplu'be'}, then what would this mean ? "not someone
unspecified eats" ? And if I want to say "not someone unspecified eats",
then why not just write {Sop (subject)} ?

I can understand, writing {tu'lu'be'}, since {tu'lu'} is considered to be
some kind of "fixed phrase". And I can understand too, that there are
indications that a rover applies to the entire word, and not just whatever
directly precedes it.

But I find it wrong, someone based on the {tu'lu'be'}, and some vague
indications with regards to the nature of the rover, to go on and write
something like {Soplu'be'}.

An expert should write as an expert; unless he/she write only for
themselves. But if you are an expert, and are writing something which will
be seen and read by other people, then you have to respect the readers and
follow the damn rules.

Expert is one thing, however *expert*qoq is another. The actions of the
individual, determine the category to which he/she belongs.

~ nI'ghma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180123/cd6c4297/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list