[96628] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] {-Ha'} with {-Qo'}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lieven)
Sat Jul 6 07:35:53 2013
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 13:35:29 +0200
From: Lieven <levinius@gmx.de>
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <1373102078.34513.YahooMailNeo@web172605.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Am 06.07.2013 11:14, schrieb Fiat Knox:
> Grammatically, you can get away with this combination of suffixes. -Ha'
> goes immediately after the verb, which sounds as if that means that it
> is injected just before the Type 1 to Type 9 suffixes; and -Qo' goes
> into the list after all other verb suffixes except a Type 9, so it would
> be injected between the Type 8 and Type 9, and it is considered a rover
> because it is the imperative form of -be'.
I'm not sure if my previous message came through, but I like to point at
the examples in chapter 4.3 which use two Type Rover suffixes on one verb:
pIHoHvIpbe'qu'
pIHoHvIpqu'be'
pIHoHqu'vIpbe'
Anything else about -Ha' and -Qo' has been said by others, so I also see
no problem with lo'Ha'Qo'.
--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
