<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/9/2021 12:04 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1818A0A7-37C3-43A8-B790-ED1C345F97EB@mac.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
It’s also strange that it’s forbidden to use a Type 7 suffix on
the second verb of a Sentence As Object construction (a ban
created by Okrand to cover a time when he forgot to use one),
though he’s subsequently broken his own ban and people often
ignore it.</blockquote>
<p>And those people deserve to suffer!</p>
<p>I've never heard that he created the ban to cover an instance
where he himself forgot it. Rather, the sentence-as-object
construction came about as a retrofit to a changed subtitle, and
the new meaning didn't include a tense marker on the second verb,
so he changed tenses to aspects and said no aspect markers on the
second verb.</p>
<p>As for an in-universe explanation, I think the second verb was
mostly supposed to be fairly simply, thinking and seeing things.
"They are used primarily, though not exclusively, with verbs of
thinking or observation..." As such, aspect is rarely applicable
to them anyway; it's the aspect of the thing thought or seen
that's important. When you deviate from the thinking and seeing
verbs, the restriction on aspect markers seems more arbitrary.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1818A0A7-37C3-43A8-B790-ED1C345F97EB@mac.com"> Then
there’s the thing about the prefix {lu-} which we were told you
should use, though people often forget it exists, and then, well,
{lutu’lu’} never happens even when it should.</blockquote>
<p>Except it's not "should." <b>tu'lu'</b> has been clearly
established as correct.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1818A0A7-37C3-43A8-B790-ED1C345F97EB@mac.com">
<div class="">And there’s three types of Rovers, only one of which
actually roves. The alternative would have been to have had 11
Types instead of 9, with two of the now “Rover” Types having
only one suffix in the Type, leaving {-be’} as the only Rover.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>What happened to <b>-qu'?</b><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1818A0A7-37C3-43A8-B790-ED1C345F97EB@mac.com">
<div class=""> This would suggest that he wanted to avoid having a
single suffix listed per Type… except that {-moH} is the only
Type 4 suffix, and {-neS} is the only Type 8.<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think that's it at all. The suffixes appear in the order
they do for a reason. You'll note that they frequently mimic in
reverse the order of elements we add to words in English. Putting
<b>-Ha'</b> and <b>-Qo'</b> into the category of "rovers" is just
a bit of "Klingons are stubborn" humor in the novelty book he
wrote.<br>
</p>
<p><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>