[tlhIngan Hol] Imperatives and {-be'}

[SuStel]

On 7/7/2017 6:09 AM, De'vID wrote:
> At issue is what "used with" means. You interpret it to mean "used 
> anywhere within the same verb". Another Interpretation is that using a 
> negation suffix "with" an imperative verb means to negate the whole 
> verb (that is, "with" is not identical to "in").

Fair enough. As I've said, I don't think using *-be'* outside of the 
commanding part of the word is an unreasonable thing to ask for. But I 
do claim that "used with" meaning "in the word" is a MUCH more obvious 
and natural interpretation than "that part of the sense of the word that 
tells someone to do something." If Okrand meant that, he didn't say it 
well... or at all.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170707/4c7215d9/attachment.htm>