Another interesting thing from the words list: the sentence {vogh tIghla' tu'lu'} seems to confirm that {vogh} is in the same category of {-Daq}-less place nouns like {Dat}, {naDev}, and {pa'}. On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 29.07.2017 um 06:38 schrieb Tad Stauffer:> {-Qo'} - The way I'm interpreting this, the new/clarified info is that > {-Qo'} and {-be'} can both be used on an imperative at the same time:[...]
If this has been discussed at the qep'a', could someone confirm that my middle example {yISuvbe'Qo'} is correct?
I'm not at the qep'a', but I had forwarded this question to Okrand before the qep'a', but he asked to reveal the answer not before the qep'a'. As this topic seems unleashed now, I think it's okay to forward his message.
The question actually arose from a phrase like {HIleghbe'moH} which is a command including the suffix {-be'}. Some argued that this is not allowed, that's why the clarification was made.
Summary: TKD mentions that "The suffix -be' cannot be used with imperative verbs" which is a bit misleading. It does not mean that -be' cannot be used at all within imperatives, it just means that it is not used to say "don't". So the phrase {yIleghbe'moH} "Cause him to not see" follows the rules properly.
http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170720.html
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Rover
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org