According to HetaQ, Krankor asked Okrand at qep'a' loSDIch whether{ -be'} could be inserted between {-taH} and {-vIS} for a suffix combination {-taHbe'vIS} (meaning something like “while discontinuously”). The answer was: "That's an interesting question." Examples of {-taHbe’}: tay'taHbe' 'Iw bIQ je Blood and water don't mix. TKW moratlh DaH bIHaw'laHtaHbe' puj 'uSDu'lIj [translation not available] PB qepHomDaq jIHtaHbe'. Saghal. (MO qepHom 2013 untranslated greetings) Examples of {-taH} and {-be’} on different verbs in the same sentence: QaptaHvIS So'wI' QaplaHbe' nuHmey weapons cannot be discharged while the cloak is in operation. S33 bIyIntaH 'e' Daqotlhbe' [You don't deserve to live (i.e. keep on living).] PK --Voragh On Behalf Of mayqel qunenoS 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. {jIvumtaHbe'} "I am not continuously working". I think this does make sense, and its ok to use it. 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. "while I am very much continuously working", "while I am not continuously working". I don't know.. I just can't *feel* what exactly these sentence could mean, or in which situations they would be appropriate. let alone the fact, that if we were to apply a rover in the aforementioned manner, then why place it right after the {-taH}, and not after the {-taHvIS} ? the way I understand it, practically, the {-vIS} and {-taHvIS} are essentially the same. so, if we were to apply a rover, we could place it right after the {-taHvIS}, thus avoiding splitting them up, since they always seem to like so much each other. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 23 Dec 2016 3:07 pm, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com<mailto:bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 6:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: but as you cleverly pointed out, there is a problem with the placement of {-neS}. If I want to say "while you were doing me the honor of being present", then is the {bISaHtaHneSvIS} correct ? There's no rule against it. I was just supposing. But I'm pretty sure there is no canon example of any suffix occurring between {-taH} and {-vIS}. I can only speak for myself, but I expect for most {-neS} would seem like a weird interruption, and if {-neS} were called for, would add it to the main clause instead. (As for rovers, does anyone even have a definite idea what effect {-qu'} or {-be'} would have following {-taH}?) ~mIp'av _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org