<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/26/2019 10:24 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cL+jOjeyebjKvqgmpH3PmK10r+7c0tWVOCB06M6TYf51w@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Let's assume the -be' applies only to the -laH. Not able, resume, eat. This might mean we resume being not able to eat
maSopqa'laH means we are able to resume eating or we resume being able to eat.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">So, if I understand correctly, one of the possible interpretations of
the word {maSopqa'laHbe'} is with the suffix {-qa'} acting solely on
the suffix {-laH}. Right ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>You're trying to draw me into saying something stronger than I
intend it. <b>-qa'</b> doesn't act solely on <b>-laH.</b> The
word as a whole has the subject resuming something and the subject
being able (or not) to do something. Canon shows us that it's not
always as simple as applying each non-rover suffix only to the
root verb, and it's not always possible to see each suffix as
applying to the entirety of what came before it. At some point you
have to see that Klingon doesn't get as precise as that. It's not
like a computer program following an exact sequence of steps to
evaluate an expression to a single return value.</p>
<p><i>paq'batlh</i> has a line, <b>chaq batlh bIvangqa'laH</b><i>
You might have a chance to make amends.</i> Literally, it means
<i>You can take action honorably again.</i> Or does it mean <i>You
again can take action honorably?</i> Or does it mean <i>You can
honorably take action again?</i> More importantly, does it even
matter? Is not the idea expressed anyway? It certainly makes all
kinds of sense in the <i>paq'batlh, </i>where Kahless's brother
Morath realizes he was wrong to fight Kahless and Kahless says
this to him in forgiveness.</p>
<p>Here's another: <b>tlhInganpu' tlhabqa'moHmeH</b><i> [to make
the Klingon people] self-sufficient once more,</i> literally <i>in
order to cause Klingons to be free again.</i> Or is it <i>in
order to again cause Klingons to be free?</i> (The idea behind
this line is that the Klingon people themselves will make the
Klingon people free once more, so what they did once the could do
again.) Again: does it matter? You end up in the same place, and
the context makes the meaning unquestionable.</p>
<p>I really think you need to back off of these super-precise
analyses. You're dropping below the resolution of the language.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>