[tlhIngan Hol] expressing "again we wouldn't be able"

mayqel qunen'oS mihkoun at gmail.com
Thu Sep 26 07:24:42 PDT 2019

> Let's assume the -be' applies only to the -laH. Not able, resume, eat. This might mean we resume being not able to eat
> maSopqa'laH means we are able to resume eating or we resume being able to eat.

So, if I understand correctly, one of the possible interpretations of
the word {maSopqa'laHbe'} is with the suffix {-qa'} acting solely on
the suffix {-laH}. Right ?

If I understand your explanation correctly, this is a very interesting fact.

Lets consider another example, to see if I understand this correctly..

The {jIqawchoHchu'} can mean either "I begin to remember perfectly",
or "I perfectly begin to remember".

So, adding a {-be'} to the mix..

The {jIqawchoHchu'be'} can mean either "I begin to not perfectly
remember", or "I don't perfectly begin to remember".

So, to summarize, if we have a verb with two "normal" suffixes and a
rover, the possibilities are:

1. The two "normal" suffixes and the rover apply on the verb, each one
independently from the other.
2. Any one of the "normal" suffixes and the rover, can apply on each
other, before applying on the verb.

Would you agree with the above ?

- bara'qa'

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list