<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/19/2021 9:07 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de">luis.chaparro@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-b767969c-940b-42b5-8243-45861279ad28-1637330834743@3c-app-webde-bap07">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">1. Is there anything wrong in using *'op* with inherently plural nouns, for example: *'op ngop*? The whole construction would remain grammatically singular, right?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think we have a definitive answer to this question.
Personally, I have no problem with <b>'op ngop</b> 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.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-b767969c-940b-42b5-8243-45861279ad28-1637330834743@3c-app-webde-bap07">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">2. If I want to say <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>She hasn't sold it<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>, 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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><b>-be'</b> seems to have a variable scope. Sometimes it applies
directly to the element it's attached to; sometimes it applies to
everything that comes before it. <b>ngevpu'be'</b> and <b>ngevta'be'</b>
probably mean "not <b>ngevpu'</b>" and "not <b>ngevta'</b>."</p>
<p>I generally try not to think of suffix combinations as single
units. It might not be useful to think of <b>-pu'be'</b> and <b>-ta'be'</b>
as having distinct meanings from <b>-pu'</b> and <b>-ta',</b>
because the <b>-be'</b> may not apply only to <b>-pu'</b> and <b>-ta'.</b><b>
</b>If I were to give a literal interpretation to <b>-pu'be'</b>
and <b>-ta'be',</b> it would be "not perfective," which would
seem to mean exactly the same thing as not including the
perfective suffix at all, and so not be a useful combination.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-b767969c-940b-42b5-8243-45861279ad28-1637330834743@3c-app-webde-bap07">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">3. To someone whose decision in a certain situation can have important consequences, I can say <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>Be responsible!*. That would be, I think, <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>yIngoy''eghmoH<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>. But if, speaking to an inmature person, I say <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>Get responsible!* or <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>Become responsible!*, would it be *yIngoy''eghchoHmoH<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> or just *yIngoy'choH<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>? (I know there is the verb *moj<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>, but I would like to know how the imperative of state / quality verbs works).</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I'd go with <b>yIngoy''eghchoHmoH,</b> but canon is inconsistent
with the <b>-'eghmoH</b> rule when it comes to including <b>-choH.</b>
If you use the <b>yIngoy'choH,</b> it will likely be accepted by
whoever reads or hears it. What Klingons would think of it, I
don't know.<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>