[tlhIngan Hol] Imperatives and {-be'}

[Lieven]

Am 06.07.2017 um 21:07 schrieb SuStel:
> There sure is an example against this: 

I was talking abut canon phrases as an example.

> TKD's explicit pronouncement that *-be' *is not used with imperatives. 

true.

> Maybe Okrand meant it only can't be used to negate the sense of /do 
> this!/ but he didn't say that.

That how I read it: commands are "do it" and to say "don't" use {-Qo'}
>> What we can be sure of is that {HIleghmoHbe'} is forbidden, because 
>> the -be' negates the command {HIleghmoH}, so we need -Qo' here.
> 
> So how about **yIta'vIpbe'?*

What about it? It seems clear to me: yIta'vIpQo'

> TKD doesn't say you replace *-be'* with *-Qo'.*

It doesn't use the verb "replace", but it says
/The suffix {-be'} cannot be used with imperative verbs. For 
imperatives, the following suffix is required: {-Qo'} "don't!, won't"/

> It makes perfect, logical sense. But it's forbidden by TKD. Until such 
> time as Okrand gives us an unambiguous example, 

True.

After some thinking about that, I believe the problem is not so much 
within the -be' suffix, but more with the -moH. We have had problems 
with that already when it comes to direct objects (cf. yIghojmoH)

TKD says that be' cannot be used with "imperative verbs". Now taking 
this literally, I think that we have looked at the -moH part too 
closely. When giving a negative command, Qo' is used, but a verb with 
-moH makes it two "verbs" (or actions), where the "cause" is seen as an 
action, and this one is not negative.

Well, nevertheless, we won't know without asking Maltz.

-- 
Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
Grammarian of the KLI
http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
http://www.klingonwiki.net