[tlhIngan Hol] qep'a' cha'maH loSDIch New words and some tidbits

[nIqolay Q]

Another interesting thing from the words list: the sentence {vogh tIghla'
tu'lu'} seems to confirm that {vogh} is in the same category of {-Daq}-less
place nouns like {Dat}, {naDev}, and {pa'}.

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:

> Am 29.07.2017 um 06:38 schrieb Tad Stauffer:> {-Qo'} - The way I'm
> interpreting this, the new/clarified info is that > {-Qo'} and {-be'} can
> both be used on an imperative at the same time:[...]
>
>> If this has been discussed at the qep'a', could someone confirm that my
>> middle example {yISuvbe'Qo'} is correct?
>>
>
> I'm not at the qep'a', but I had forwarded this question to Okrand before
> the qep'a', but he asked to reveal the answer not before the qep'a'. As
> this topic seems unleashed now, I think it's okay to forward his message.
>
> The question actually arose from a phrase like {HIleghbe'moH} which is a
> command including the suffix {-be'}. Some argued that this is not allowed,
> that's why the clarification was made.
>
> Summary:
> TKD mentions that "The suffix -be' cannot be used with imperative verbs"
> which is a bit misleading. It does not mean that -be' cannot be used at all
> within imperatives, it just means that it is not used to say "don't". So
> the phrase {yIleghbe'moH} "Cause him to not see" follows the rules properly.
>
> http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170720.html
>
> --
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka Quvar valer 'utlh
> Grammarian of the KLI
> http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
> http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Rover
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170729/646bbbdf/attachment.htm>