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

[mayqel qunenoS]

so, we can add a sh@!@load (as americans say) of rovers on a single word ?

qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 16 Nov 2016 3:01 pm, "Lieven" <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:

> Am 16.11.2016 um 13:14 schrieb kechpaja:
>
>> At the qepHom earlier this month, Marc told me and a few other folks
>> that you can't have more than one {-be'} (or more than one {-qu'}) in a
>> single word.
>>
>
> I can confirm that, because I also observed or even was part of the
> discussion. But...
>
> Anyway, I should not that this was one of the situations where Okrand was
> overwhelmed by the question and may have answered without intensely
> thinking about it, hence maybe unintentionally contradicting himself.
>
> There was someone who mentioned that "no more than one suffix of each type
> may occur at a time" (chapter 4.2.10 TKD). It was this that Okrand
> confirmed. The mentioned rule regards only non-rovers. I'm sure Okrand did
> not think of the possible construction with two {-be'} in one word, so I
> would not put too much weight on what he said.
>
> TKD further says that {-be'} "follows the concept being negated". If I
> take this literally, I could probably use it nine times one a verb with
> nine sufixes:
> {jIghelbe'choHbe'laHbe'taHbe'} "I am not continously not able to not
> change not asking"
>
> Hey, let's add some -qu' and -Qo' :-)
>
> {qaleghbe'qu'} sounds okay, I guess we even have canon examples that will
> confirm that.
>
> --
> 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/e1f454bc/attachment-0002.htm>