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

[mayqel qunenoS]

jIH:
> 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)} ?
lieven:
> Because you can't say "subject" if the subject is not known,
> and that's what {-lu'} is used for. Compare these following phrases:

Yes, this is what I meant to say, but it got screwed up in the english
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'}.

lieven:
> Next, we may discuss the difference in the word order, hence {-be'lu'}. This is certaily dependant
> on the verb, for instance look at {legh}. When negating {legh} you get a verb that can be something
> like "being blind". I understand {leghbe'lu'} as "one is doing some not-seeing" as opposed to {leghlu'be'}
> "the act of seeing does not happen".

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 ?

And we come to the heart of the problem..

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 ?

Please, don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to quarrel with you,
since I respect you deeply. Let alone the fact, that it wasn't you,
the one who wrote the sentence, which sparked this thread.

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'}.

lieven:
> The cake standing there has been {Soplu'be'}

Again, here I understand "someone ate the cake, and that someone isn't
unspecified".

~ nI'ghma

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 23.01.2018 um 09:54 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
>>
>> 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)} ?
>
>
> Because you can't say "subject" if the subject is not known, and that's what
> {-lu'} is used for. Compare these following phrases:
>
> {chab Sop targh} "The targ eats the pie"
> This is clear who ate it.
>
> {chab Soplu'} "Some unknown subject eats the pie" or "the pie is eaten".
>
> This can be used to describe a half pie standing on the table during the
> party: You say that it is being eaten, but you did not observe who ate it.
> It's kind of a general expression, "This is a pie that has been eaten by
> someone"
>
> {chab Sop vay'} "Somebody eats (or has eaten) the pie"
>
> Talking about the same pie on the party table. This could be used to
> describe an observed action: You see "somebody" eting the pie. Even in past
> tense, you may say "someone ate the pie". But still that's a definite
> subject, it's different from {-lu'}.
>
> Adding a negation turns {chab Soplu'} into {chab Soplu'be'}, negating the
> entire phrase [Soplu']. You say this when sou discover that the pie on the
> table is left untouched. Nobody tried from it.
>
> ---
>
> Next, we may discuss the difference in the word order, hence {-be'lu'}. This
> is certaily dependant on the verb, for instance look at {legh}. When
> negating {legh} you get a verb that can be something like "being blind". I
> understand {leghbe'lu'} as "one is doing some not-seeing" as opposed to
> {leghlu'be'} "the act of seeing does not happen".
>
> This actually works with {Sop} as well, when you think of {Sopbe'} a verb of
> refusing to eat (like in a hunger strike) or if somebody wants to loose
> weight. Go to a weight atchers meeting, then you can say {naDev Sopbe'lu'}.
> The cake standing there has been {Soplu'be'}. THAT's the difference.
>
>
> --
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
> http://www.klingonisch.de
> http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org