[tlhIngan Hol] law' puS construction with verbs carrying suffixes

[nIqolay Q]

We've never seen it. A lot of stative verbs have {-Ha'}, so I'd probably be
more inclined to accept one of those in the Q-spot. I'm not sure how I feel
about {-be'}, but then we don't know much about what verb suffixes can be
used in the law'/puS construction. For a meaning like your sentence, you
can negate the law'/puS verbs themselves, see:
http://klingonska.org/canon/2004-03-holqed-13-1.txt

{tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghvam tIq law'be' DIvI' Hol 'elaDya' Hol joq mu'tlhegh
tIq puSbe'}

which would mean "This Klingon sentence isn't longer than the Greek and/or
English sentence," in other words, that it is shorter or equal in length.

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 8:31 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> At another thread, I wrote the sentence:
>
> {tlhIngan mu'tlheghvam tIqbe' law' DIvI' Hol 'elaDya' Hol qoj mu'tlhegh
> tIqbe' puS}
>
> With the intented meaning "this klingon sentence isn't longer than the
> greek and/or english sentence".
>
> I would like to ask whether the {tIqbe'} is an acceptable verb to be
> placed in the slot of the law' puS construction.
>
> Can we use there a verb carrying suffixes ?
>
> ~ nI'ghma
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171204/b471b4e9/attachment-0016.htm>