<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/17/2022 4:54 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de">luis.chaparro@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-d0e3c03b-c554-48fe-bb60-88d3b0d910ea-1645091662362@3c-app-webde-bap31">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">charghwI':
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As a stylistic thing, I’d probably choose {X tu’lu’be’} to mean that there are no Xs, since {tu’lu’} is pretty much fossilized as “There is an X or there are Xs”, while {tu’be’lu’} breaks the fossilized form, suggesting the more literal translation that one doesn’t observe or discover it, so I’d translate “The Undiscovered Country” as {Sep tu’be’lu’bogh}. There is a country, so {Sep tu’lu’be’bogh} kinda suggests that there isn’t a country, so it doesn’t work as well for a translation, In My Humble Opinion.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Thank you for your interesting contributions. That's a very good question. But then, do you think the combination I used in my text (*tu'choHlu'pu'*), since it *breaks* the *tu'lu'*, would be rather understood with the more literal meaning of *observe, find, discover*? I was trying to render the idea of *there have begun to be* (*they have come into existence*).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think <b>tu'lu'</b> should be thought of as an
indivisible particle. The <b>tu'</b> and the <b>-lu'</b> put
together tend to have a fixed meaning, but that doesn't mean the
combination has been turned into its own unaffixed word. If you
want <b>tu'choHlu'pu'</b> to mean <i>there had begun to be,</i>
that should be fine.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>