[tlhIngan Hol] [Spam] tu'be'lu' vs tu'lu'be

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Fri Jan 12 06:38:30 PST 2018

On 1/12/2018 9:23 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> Anyway, if the canon way of expressing the intended meaning is 
> {tu'lu'be'}, then I'm ok with it. But is it canon indeed ?

First off, both *tu'be'lu'* and *tu'lu'be'* are canon.

    *SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'.
    */There are no old warriors. /(TKW)

    *QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj
    */May your coordinates be free of tribbles./ (PK)

Next, canon supports the idea that rovers do not necessarily only affect 
the immediately preceding element. While this is true sometimes (e.g., 
the *choHoHvIp* examples in TKD) it is not true always. For instance:

    *nom yIghoSqu'
    */Maximum speed!/ (ST5)
    *-qu'* is intensifying the entire sentence, not just the verb.

    *Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'
    */Eat everything or you will die without honor.
    /*-be'* is negating the entire main clause, not just the verb.

Finally, as Lieven says, *tu'lu'* appears to be a somewhat fixed phrase 
that doesn't always work as a standard basic sentence. Although *tu'* 
means /discover,/ *tu'lu'* is often used where no discovery occurs; it 
merely signifies a thing's presence. In this sense it may be considered 
an idiom whose formula you simply follow.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180112/75085eec/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list