My read of the note is that ALL NEGATIVE IMPERATIVES USE {Qo’}. In addition to that, some imperatives might also have one or more {-be’}s. I don’t think you can have an imperative that has {-be’} instead of {-Qo’}.

Note that {-be’} is the only suffix that can be used more than once in a Klingon verb, since it is the only true roving suffix, and it specifically negates whatever it follows.

It can be ambiguous, in terms of whether it negates only the suffix immediately in front of it, or if it negates the entire verb and suffix string leading up to it. The point is that it doesn’t negate anything that follows it.

I don’t think you could string multiple {-be’}s together. That would be “highly marked”, like putting {-ghach} on a bare verb.

But nothing stops you from putting multiple {-be’}s along the string of suffixes after a verb, so nothing stops you from doing so before {-Qo’}.

Meanwhile negating a command is synonymous to “don’t”, so you can’t negate a command without {-Qo’}.

… unless someone can come up with a weird case that currently escapes me.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Jun 8, 2019, at 6:04 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

I understand the arguments so far, but there is still something I
don't understand.

First, lets remember what was written, in the leaflet of qep'a' 2017:

"Finally... a note about -Qo'. There's apparently been some confusion
about -be' and -Qo' in imperatives. This is no doubt because this was
not explained as clearly as it could have been in the Dictionary.
The rule says -Qo' "is used in imperatives" and that -Qo' is "the
imperative counterpart to -be'." The rule isn't that -be' can't appear
anywhere in an imperative construction; it's that -be' can't be used
to mean "don't!" - use -Qo' for that. In other words, -Qo' is used
(and -be' is not) to indicate a negative command, when the meaning of
the command is "don't do X!" X may contain a -be', but if the command
is to not do X, you still need -Qo' at the end (if you're saying
"don't do X" and not "do not-X")".

(I copied the above by hand from the leaflet, so double-check with it
for possible errors).

And now, lets return to the original subject of this thread.

jIH:
If I remember correctly, tkd has the Ca'Non example:
HIHoHvIpQo'
don't be afraid to kill me
If I say HIlajvIpQo', according to the above, it should translate to "don't be afraid to accept me".
De'vID:
lugh

So far so good.

jIH:
However, the lajQo', has been given as "reject".
De'vID:
mughmeH Qu' napmoHmeH neH jIyweS 'oH mu'vam'e'.

ok, I understand this too.

So, lets say I write HIlajQo'. The way I understand it, it literally
means "don't accept me".

And if I write HIlajvIpQo', then it means "don't be afraid to accept me".

However, if I write HIlajbe', according to the qep'a' 2017, then what
does it mean ? "not accept me" ?
And if I write HIlajvIpbe', is it "be not afraid to accept be" ?
And if I wrote HIlajvIpbe'Qo', is it "don't be not afraid to accept me" ?

I'm asking this because I'm trying to understand, what the qep'a'
information on using -be' in imperatives actually means.

~ m. qunen'oS
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org