mIp'av:

> As for rovers, does anyone even have a 

> definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would

> have following {-taH} ?

lets write an example..

{jIvumtaH} "I am continuously working".

{jIvumtaHqu'} "I am very much continuously working". I would understand this as someone trying to emphasize the "continuously", though I can't say that in my mind there is much difference between the {-taH} and the {-taHqu'}. after all there are 24 hours in the day, right ? If someone says "I am working continuously", then the maximum I can understand is those 24 hours. I don't see how the {-qu'}, can add more to this.

At qep'a' wejDIch a bunch of people were playing a song-naming game, and they'd been playing it for a long time. Others of us were wondering why they didn't come join us in speaking Klingon. I walked up to them and said: SubomlI'be'. SubomtaHqu'.

{jIvumtaHbe'} "I am not continuously working". I think this does make sense, and its ok to use it.

Absolutely. Furthermore, we've seen a number of examples in which the -be' suffix seems to have a larger scope than just the immediately preceding element. So jIvumtaHbe' might mean I am not continuously working (jI-vum-[taH-be']) but it also might mean I am not working continuously ([jI-vum-taH]-be').

now, if your original question was with regards to rovers being placed after the {-taH} in the {-taHvIS}, then I think that the resulting sentence wouldn't make sense.

I can see the problem. *jIvumtaHqu'vIS while I am CONTINUOUSLY working—as opposed to what? All whiles in Klingon are continuous. *jIvumtaHbe'vIS while I am not-continuously working—except all whiles in Klingon are continuous.

I have no problem with -neS, though, if you really want to put it there. *jIvumtaHneSvIS while, sir, I am working. I agree, however, with the opinion that you're more likely to put the -neS on the main clause, not on the dependent clause. I suppose you could be thoroughly obsequious and say *jIvumtaHneSvIS HuchwIj DaHIjneS'a' would you please deliver my money while I am working, sir? (That's a very loose translation.) I imagine there are cultural reasons you wouldn't do this, but I don't claim this as evidence against the practice.

Ultimately, I think -taH and -vIS remain separate suffixes; there is no suffix *-taHvIS, and there's no evidence of movement toward there being one. -taH is simply a requirement of using -vIS, and I think that the -taH must be unmodified by rovers to make sense.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name