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

[Lieven L. Litaer]

Am 19.11.2021 um 15:58 schrieb SuStel:
> I don't think we have a definitive answer to this question. Personally,
> I have no problem with *'op ngop* meaning exactly what you say. I
> believe we do know that you can use numbers with inherently plural
> nouns, so I see no reason you can't use number-like nouns in the same way.

I agree. A point that slightly confirms the usage of {'op} like a number
is that Maltz recently confirmed that it's okay to say {'oplogh} and
{'opDIch}.

>> 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?

I wouldn't be so strict here. There's a canon sentence that comes to my
mind {vIta'pu'be'} "I didn't do it", but that does no help here, as it
doesn't use the {-ta'} suffix.

Using {-ta'be'} does not brig a negative connotation of failing to me.
You could also not sell something with intention. "My father wanted to
sell his car yesterday; but he changed his mind, he did not sell it."
I'd use {ngevta'be'} here.

--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
http://www.tlhInganHol.com
http://klingon.wiki/En/AliceInWonderland