[tlhIngan Hol] Beginner's text and questions

[Ed Bailey]

lOn Thursday, February 17, 2022, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 2/17/2022 10:40 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 16, 2022, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
>>
>> One example happened to be that way, but it doesn't follow that the -jaj
>> or -'a' CAUSED the order of the rover.
>>
>
> vay' vIjatlhbe'bogh DaghoH.
>
> Maybe you didn't intend to say that, but it's an obvious interpretation of
> what you said. "The difference in the canon examples is that -be' follows
> tu' when -jaj or -'a' is appended." This sounds very much like you're
> saying that appending *-jaj* or *-'a'* makes the *-be'* move from the
> *-lu'* to the *tu',* that you're stating a rule "-be' follows tu' when
> -jaj or -'a' is appended" that leads to the canon examples. I wanted to
> make it clear that this is *not* a known rule, just your observation of
> what order of suffixes happened in these examples.
>
It's just something I hadn't noticed before, and was wondering to myself if
there was any significance to it.

I looked for more canon examples of this negation (admittedly, not too
hard) but found none. These few examples lead me to suspect that MO regards
tu'lu'be' and tu'be'lu' as equivalent and that he put -be' after tu' before
-'a' and -jaj because of the stress pattern, and that it's a matter of
style.

~mIp'av
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220217/8dd78aea/attachment-0003.htm>