[tlhIngan Hol] Can we have the {-be'} twice ?

[mayqel qunenoS]

lieven:
> Altough I have no canon examples, I'm sure
> that it's okay to negate multiple concepts of a
> verb.

you mean using more than one time the {-be'} on the same verb ?

qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 16 Nov 2016 4:01 pm, "Lieven" <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:

> Am 16.11.2016 um 14:10 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
>
>> so, we can add a sh@!@load (as americans say) of rovers on a single word
>> ?
>>
>
> My interpretation is that we can.
>
> TKD even shows us two examples of using {-be'} and {-qu'} on one verb:
> {nuQawqu'be'} "they have not finished us off"
>
> {pIHoHvIpbe'qu'} "we are NOT afraid to kill you"
>
> So at least that is clear we can use multiple rovers on one verb. It does
> not answer the question of using the same rover multiple times, but one can
> narrow it in:
>
> {-Ha'} always comes right after the verb, so double use makes no sense
> (yajHa'Ha'??)
>
> {-Qo'} always comes at the end, so same as {-Ha'}.
>
> {-be'} and {-qu'} are true "rovers".
>
> {-qu'} emphasizes what preceds it, even the suffix {-be'}
> {-be'} negates what precedes it, even the suffix {-qu'}
>
> Altough I have no canon examples, I'm sure that it's okay to negate
> multiple concepts of a verb.
>
>
> --
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka Quvar valer 'utlh
> Grammarian of the KLI
> http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
> http://www.klingonwiki.net
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> 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/20161116/cdf09718/attachment.htm>