On Dec 5, 2017 16:05, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote: We’ve seen one example of this in the article about variants of the {law’ / puS} formula nIqolay Q referred to: * QuchlIj vIl law'be' QuchwIj vIl puSbe'* your forehead isn't ridgier than my forehead. (HQ 13.1:10) Note that {-be’} appears on both {law’} and {puS}. That's not an example of what he was asking for. He would want the {-be'} on {vIl} above. On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 8:31 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: At another thread, I wrote the sentence: {tlhIngan mu'tlheghvam tIqbe' law' DIvI' Hol 'elaDya' Hol qoj mu'tlhegh tIqbe' puS} With the intented meaning "this klingon sentence isn't longer than the greek and/or english sentence". I would like to ask whether the {tIqbe'} is an acceptable verb to be placed in the slot of the law' puS construction. Can we use there a verb carrying suffixes ? -- De'vID