[tlhIngan Hol] 'ar in "to be" constructions

[SuStel]

On 6/18/2020 10:18 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> jIH:
>> 1) jaghpu'na'ma' chaH qama' 'ar'e' ?
>> or
>> 2) jaghpu'na'ma' chaH qama''e' 'ar ?
> I rethought this matter and decided that unless there is any Ca'Non
> which suggests otherwise, to be placing the {-'e'} on the noun instead
> of the question word {'ar}.
>
> So, in the example above I'd finally choose to write {jaghpu'na'ma'
> chaH qama''e' 'ar ?}.
>
> First of all, there's something which seems wrong with writing
> {jaghpu'na'ma' chaH qama' 'ar'e' ?}.
>
> And second, the only question words in Ca'Non known to be able to bear
> type-5 suffixes are the {'Iv} and {nuq}, since they occupy*exactly*
> the same position as their answer. But (as far as I know), there is
> nowhere written that the {'ar} functions similarly.

*nuqDaq* also occupies the same location as the answer, but it's said to 
be a combination of *nuq + -Daq,* so it's already got a type 5 suffix 
and can't have another.

Lacking any instructions whatsoever on the mutual use of *'ar* and type 
5 suffixes, I too would not assume the suffix goes on *'ar.* And this 
isn't limited to translations of "to be" sentences.

/How many buildings do you work in?
/*qachDaq 'ar bIvum?*

But if we do receive word later that the suffix migrates to the *'ar,* I 
will not be surprised or dismayed.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20200618/a31b3529/attachment-0015.htm>