lOn Thursday, February 17, 2022, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/17/2022 10:40 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

One example happened to be that way, but it doesn't follow that the -jaj or -'a' CAUSED the order of the rover.

vay' vIjatlhbe'bogh DaghoH.

Maybe you didn't intend to say that, but it's an obvious interpretation of what you said. "The difference in the canon examples is that -be' follows tu' when -jaj or -'a' is appended." This sounds very much like you're saying that appending -jaj or -'a' makes the -be' move from the -lu' to the tu', that you're stating a rule "-be' follows tu' when -jaj or -'a' is appended" that leads to the canon examples. I wanted to make it clear that this is not a known rule, just your observation of what order of suffixes happened in these examples.

It's just something I hadn't noticed before, and was wondering to myself if there was any significance to it.

I looked for more canon examples of this negation (admittedly, not too hard) but found none. These few examples lead me to suspect that MO regards tu'lu'be' and tu'be'lu' as equivalent and that he put -be' after tu' before -'a' and -jaj because of the stress pattern, and that it's a matter of style.

~mIp'av