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