On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 17:27, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 27.02.2019 um 17:21 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
> Would there be a reason, that the ghItlhHa' was given as "lenient,
> indulgent" instead of "be lenient, indulgent" ?
> Does the missing "be" change anything ?

No, that's probably just an typo. ghIlab ghew yIbuSQo'.

One of my pet peeves about the German definitions in {boQwI'} is that verbs of quality are inconsistent as to whether they include "sein" (the German equivalent of "be"). For example, {matlh} is "loyal, treu" while {matlhHa'} is "untreu sein". But I'm not bothered enough to try to fix this.

De'vID