[110123] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' cha'maH loSDIch New words and some tidbits
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lieven)
Sat Jul 29 16:59:39 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Lieven <levinius@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 22:59:36 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAKXmuDKBvCj9tpu+5U_bs4cSTJ7s5M+ZjWe+p0AwPKpS9tzGNw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
Am 29.07.2017 um 06:38 schrieb Tad Stauffer:> {-Qo'} - The way I'm
interpreting this, the new/clarified info is that > {-Qo'} and {-be'}
can both be used on an imperative at the same time:[...]
> If this has been discussed at the qep'a', could someone confirm that my
> middle example {yISuvbe'Qo'} is correct?
I'm not at the qep'a', but I had forwarded this question to Okrand
before the qep'a', but he asked to reveal the answer not before the
qep'a'. As this topic seems unleashed now, I think it's okay to forward
his message.
The question actually arose from a phrase like {HIleghbe'moH} which is a
command including the suffix {-be'}. Some argued that this is not
allowed, that's why the clarification was made.
Summary:
TKD mentions that "The suffix -be' cannot be used with imperative verbs"
which is a bit misleading. It does not mean that -be' cannot be used at
all within imperatives, it just means that it is not used to say
"don't". So the phrase {yIleghbe'moH} "Cause him to not see" follows the
rules properly.
http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170720.html
--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
Grammarian of the KLI
http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Rover
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
