<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><span></span></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br>On Mar 25, 2019, at 08:44, De'vID <<a href="mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:27, Daniel Dadap <<a href="mailto:daniel@dadap.net">daniel@dadap.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
> On Mar 25, 2019, at 04:51, De'vID <<a href="mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" target="_blank">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> So the rule isn't that only {-qu'} is allowed, but that only rovers are allowed.)<br>
<br>
Did {-Qo'} show up as well? I guess that wouldn’t make sense semantically, so I expect it wouldn’t. I wonder if that (and maybe other rover-only things) why {-Ha'} and {-Qo'} are classiford with the true rovers {-qu'} and {-be'}, even though they don’t really rove.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You're right, it's only {-qu'}, {-Ha'}, and {-be'} (AFAIK). I'd forgotten that {-Qo'} also counts as a rover.</div></div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Are there any canon examples of {-Qo'} being used together with a type two verb suffix? It semantically seems to fit with {-qang}, at least, so I wonder if it “roved” from historically being a type 2 to being something else. I guess {SuvvIpQo' SuvwI'na'} would make sense as something useful to say, so maybe not.</div><div><br></div><div>I was originally thinking it wouldn’t make sense, semantically, for a stative verb acting like an adjective to take {-Qo'}, since it seems volitiony without officially being a volition suffix, and volition with a state seems weird, but I’m not totally sure any more. Can a person {'IQQo'}, for example? Assuming one can, {'IQQo'bogh HoD} still seems like it makes more sense than *{HoD 'IQQo'}, though, if we are to hypothesize that rovers generally may follow a stative-verb-acting-as-an-adjective.</div></div></body></html>