[tlhIngan Hol] can lo'laH take -laH ?

[mayqel qunen'oS]

There's the be-verb {lo'laH} defined as "be valuable".

On "Newsgroup: Microsoft Network expert forum Date: Sunday, November
30, 1997 11:23 pm", as found in:
http://klingon.wiki/En/Msn_1997-11-30, 'oqranD writes:

*** Quote starts ***

On the other hand, you're right about lo'laH be valuable. It is a
simple verb in its own right (though it's an unusual two-syllable
one), not the verb lo' use plus Type 5 suffix -laH can. It is likely
that there is some sort of historical connection to the verb + suffix
form, but, if so, it is just that – historical.

*** Quote ends ***

In this quote, {lo'laH} is being described as "not the verb lo' use
plus Type 5 suffix -laH can", but a few words later we read "It is
likely that there is some sort of historical connection to the verb +
suffix form, but, if so, it is just that – historical."

What I'm wondering is this:

Does this kind of historical connection mean that we can't use the
suffix -laH on the {lo'laH} ?

If we wrote {lo'laHchoHlaH Dujvam} for "this ship is able to become
valuable", would it be right or wrong ?

~ Qa'yIn