On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:22 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
While I was writing the initial post, I remembered that we had discussed in the past that the {QamvIS Hegh..} was a special case, but my confusion came from the fact, that I was under the impression, that its' being "a special case" was in reference only to the the {QamvIS} and the {torvIS} lacking a {-taH}.
Anyway, good to know that its' being a special case refers to the placement of the second {-vIS} clause as well.
Technically, there's nothing explicit yet saying that {QamvIS Hegh} is wrong because of the placement of a {-vIS} verb before a part of a law'/puS clause (unless SuStel has some insider info). But that grammar has never been elaborated on and we have no other examples, so it's probably best not to mess too much with it. (The fact that TKW explicitly calls out the lack of {-taH} as a deliberate error but not the placement of the {-vIS} verbs themselves makes me wonder if it's actually an error, but perhaps MO was folding all the erroneous usages of {-vIS} into one example.)