To me, the two represent two different things: vIta'pu'be' - "I have not done it, ever (in the scope of time being considered)" vIta'be'pu' - "there has been at least one instance of me *not* doing (in the scope of time being considered), but I'm not necessarily denying that there were also instances of me doing it" For example: qaStaHvIS DIS vorgh, jIroppu'be'. - "Last year, I wasn't ever sick." qaStaHvIS DIS vorgh, jIropbe'pu'. - "Last year, I wasn't always sick." The distinction becomes a bit clearer with -ta': qaStaHvIS wa'Hu' ram Hoch, jIQongta'be'. - "I didn't manage to get any sleep last night." qaStaHvIS wa'Hu' ram Hoch, jIQongbe'ta'. - "I was able to remain awake last night." //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 13:39 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] vIta'pu'be' vs vIta'be'pu' tkd has on p. 172, {vIta'pu'be'}. I know, that the effect of the rover {-be'} can extend not only to whatever directly precedes it, but to the entire word. Still, I wonder.. If instead of {vIta'pu'be'} for "I didn't do it", we wrote {vIta'be'pu'}, then would it be equally correct ? ~ nI'ghma