[tlhIngan Hol] placement of {-be'} relative to the {-pu'} and {-ta'}

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Wed Sep 18 07:50:51 PDT 2019

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 15:24, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've always wondered with regards to the placement of the {-be'}
> relative to the {-pu'} and {-ta'}.
> As far as the {-pu'} is concerned, since the tkd has the Ca'Non
> example of {vIta'pu'be'}, I decided to *always* write {-pu'be'}
> instead of {-be'pu'}.

TKD says "It follows the concept being negated". Here, {vIta'pu'} "I did
it" is the concept.

Before I continue, does anyone have something to comment on the above ?
> And now I continue..
> However, I'm still puzzled as far as the placement of the {-be'}
> relative to the {-ta'} is concerned.

Since {-ta'} is the same suffix type as {-pu'}, why would you expect it to
work any differently with respect to {-be'}?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190918/fa46ea00/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list