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

[Will Martin]

In answer to #2: {-ta’be’} doesn’t exclusively imply failure. It can also imply success that hasn’t been achieved YET.

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 9:07 AM, luis.chaparro at web.de wrote:
> 
> 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!
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org