so, we can add a sh@!@load (as americans say) of rovers on a single word ?
qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
Am 16.11.2016 um 13:14 schrieb kechpaja:
At the qepHom earlier this month, Marc told me and a few other folks
that you can't have more than one {-be'} (or more than one {-qu'}) in a
single word.
I can confirm that, because I also observed or even was part of the discussion. But...
Anyway, I should not that this was one of the situations where Okrand was overwhelmed by the question and may have answered without intensely thinking about it, hence maybe unintentionally contradicting himself.
There was someone who mentioned that "no more than one suffix of each type may occur at a time" (chapter 4.2.10 TKD). It was this that Okrand confirmed. The mentioned rule regards only non-rovers. I'm sure Okrand did not think of the possible construction with two {-be'} in one word, so I would not put too much weight on what he said.
TKD further says that {-be'} "follows the concept being negated". If I take this literally, I could probably use it nine times one a verb with nine sufixes:
{jIghelbe'choHbe'laHbe'taHbe'} "I am not continously not able to not change not asking"
Hey, let's add some -qu' and -Qo' :-)
{qaleghbe'qu'} sounds okay, I guess we even have canon examples that will confirm that.
--
Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
Grammarian of the KLI
http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
http://www.klingonwiki.net
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org