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

mayqel qunen'oS mihkoun at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 07:18:22 PDT 2020

> 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.

So, sorry {'ar}.. No type-5 suffixes for you..

~ Qa'yIn

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list