There's the be-verb {lo'laH} defined as "be valuable". On "Newsgroup: Microsoft Network expert forum Date: Sunday, November 30, 1997 11:23 pm", as found in: http://klingon.wiki/En/Msn_1997-11-30, 'oqranD writes: *** Quote starts *** On the other hand, you're right about lo'laH be valuable. It is a simple verb in its own right (though it's an unusual two-syllable one), not the verb lo' use plus Type 5 suffix -laH can. It is likely that there is some sort of historical connection to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it is just that – historical. *** Quote ends *** In this quote, {lo'laH} is being described as "not the verb lo' use plus Type 5 suffix -laH can", but a few words later we read "It is likely that there is some sort of historical connection to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it is just that – historical." What I'm wondering is this: Does this kind of historical connection mean that we can't use the suffix -laH on the {lo'laH} ? If we wrote {lo'laHchoHlaH Dujvam} for "this ship is able to become valuable", would it be right or wrong ? ~ Qa'yIn