On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:36, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
And when has it been proven that you can't use -laH on an adjectivally acting verb? I don't think you can, but I don't think it's ever been proven to be so.

Surely, this is forbidden by this sentence in TKD 4.4: "If a Type 5 noun suffix is used (section 3.3.5), it follows the verb, which, when used to modify the noun in this way, can have no other suffix except the rover {-qu'} /emphatic/. The Type 5 noun suffix follows {-qu'}."

We now know that the exception to the rule should really have been something like "except any rover other than {Qo'}", because we've seen {-be'} ({wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'} from PK) and {-Ha'} ({Duj ngaDHa'} from KGT) used on a verb acting as an adjective following a noun, but we have no reason to believe that the rule as stated is wrong about non-rover suffixes.

--
De'vID