if it helps to take a stroll down memory lane.. the original {jIghelbe'choHlaHbe'}, (which sparked this thread), was written by Qov as a reply to one of my -kahless knows- numerous questions. she was trying to show me, how to say something like "I'm not able to stop myself from asking". back then, being more of a beginner than I'm now, I didn't notice the two {-be'} on the same word. this happened only today, and the confusion commenced. now, since Qov is an expert I don't think she would have written this word, if the two {-be'} weren't actually allowed. however, it surprises me that noone else has ever used such a construction, at least not during the 14 months I've been here.. why doesn't someone send a mail to okrand in order to verify ? after all this regards something which took place at the qepHom. qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Nov 2016 4:20 pm, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
jatlh Lieven:
TKD further says that {-be'} "follows the concept being negated". If I take this literally, I could probably use it nine times one a verb with nine sufixes: {jIghelbe'choHbe'laHbe'taHbe'} "I am not continously not able to not change not asking"
What context would prompt you to form a verb like this? Even with your
explanation, no matter how often I read the word (well, about 8 times so far), I still get lost by the end.
Multiple negation becomes confusing very quickly (in any language, I expect).
But even if we find out it's definitely ungrammatical, using multiple -qu' for added emphasis seems like one of those intentional violations Klingons use for effect. I could say something like be'nalwI' SoS pI'qu'qu'! (Actually this statement is very false, but I was thinking of an old joke.)
~mIp'av
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org