[tlhIngan Hol] {-lIvIS}

[Steven Boozer]

According to HetaQ, Krankor asked Okrand at qep'a' loSDIch whether{ -be'} could be inserted between {-taH} and {-vIS} for a suffix combination {-taHbe'vIS} (meaning something like “while discontinuously”). The answer was: "That's an interesting question."

Examples of {-taHbe’}:
  tay'taHbe' 'Iw bIQ je
  Blood and water don't mix. TKW

  moratlh DaH bIHaw'laHtaHbe' puj 'uSDu'lIj
   [translation not available] PB

  qepHomDaq jIHtaHbe'.  Saghal.
   (MO qepHom 2013 untranslated greetings)


Examples of {-taH} and {-be’} on different verbs in the same sentence:

  QaptaHvIS So'wI' QaplaHbe' nuHmey
  weapons cannot be discharged while the cloak is
   in operation. S33

  bIyIntaH 'e' Daqotlhbe'
   [You don't deserve to live (i.e. keep on living).] PK

--Voragh

On Behalf Of mayqel qunenoS

mIp'av:
> As for rovers, does anyone even have a
> definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would
> have following {-taH} ?

lets write an example..

{jIvumtaH} "I am continuously working".

{jIvumtaHqu'} "I am very much continuously working". I would understand this as someone trying to emphasize the "continuously", though I can't say that in my mind there is much difference between the {-taH} and the {-taHqu'}. after all there are 24 hours in the day, right ? If someone says "I am working continuously", then the maximum I can understand is those 24 hours. I don't see how the {-qu'}, can add more to this.

{jIvumtaHbe'} "I am not continuously working". I think this does make sense, and its ok to use it.

now, if your original question was with regards to rovers being placed after the {-taH} in the {-taHvIS}, then I think that the resulting sentence wouldn't make sense.

"while I am very much continuously working", "while I am not continuously working". I don't know.. I just can't *feel* what exactly these sentence could mean, or in which situations they would be appropriate.

let alone the fact, that if we were to apply a rover in the aforementioned manner, then why place it right after the {-taH}, and not after the {-taHvIS} ? the way I understand it, practically, the {-vIS} and {-taHvIS} are essentially the same. so, if we were to apply a rover, we could place it right after the {-taHvIS}, thus avoiding splitting them up, since they always seem to like so much each other.

qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 23 Dec 2016 3:07 pm, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com<mailto:bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 6:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun at gmail.com>> wrote:

but as you cleverly pointed out, there is a problem with the placement
of {-neS}. If I want to say "while you were doing me the honor of
being present", then is the {bISaHtaHneSvIS} correct ?

There's no rule against it. I was just supposing. But I'm pretty sure there is no canon example of any suffix occurring between {-taH} and {-vIS}. I can only speak for myself, but I expect for most {-neS} would seem like a weird interruption, and if {-neS} were called for, would add it to the main clause instead. (As for rovers, does anyone even have a definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would have following {-taH}?)
~mIp'av

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org>
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161223/812960b0/attachment.htm>