[tlhIngan Hol] *'op* and inherently plural nouns / *-ta'be'* / *Get responsible!*

[luis.chaparro at web.de]

Just three questions motivated by the last discussions:

1. Is there anything wrong in using *'op* with inherently plural nouns, for example: *'op ngop*? The whole construction would remain grammatically singular, right?

2. If I want to say *She hasn't sold it*, I can say *ngevpu'be'*. What would *ngevta'be'* mean? That she set out to sell it, but she didn't accomplished it? Has *-ta'be'* always the meaning of failing? Or can we also use it just to negate that an action took place?

3. To someone whose decision in a certain situation can have important consequences, I can say *Be responsible!*. That would be, I think, *yIngoy''eghmoH*. But if, speaking to an inmature person, I say *Get responsible!* or *Become responsible!*, would it be *yIngoy''eghchoHmoH* or just *yIngoy'choH*? (I know there is the verb *moj*, but I would like to know how the imperative of state / quality verbs works).

Thank you!