On 7 July 2017 at 15:53, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/7/2017 6:09 AM, De'vID wrote:
At issue is what "used with" means. You interpret it to mean "used anywhere within the same verb". Another Interpretation is that using a negation suffix "with" an imperative verb means to negate the whole verb (that is, "with" is not identical to "in").
Fair enough. As I've said, I don't think using -be' outside of the commanding part of the word is an unreasonable thing to ask for. But I do claim that "used with" meaning "in the word" is a MUCH more obvious and natural interpretation than "that part of the sense of the word that tells someone to do something." If Okrand meant that, he didn't say it well... or at all.
MO has clarified this at the qep'a' and in a message to Lieven: https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-losdich/qepa-chamah-losdic... (on the last page, titled "Other 5") http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170720.html He did, in fact, mean that {-be'} can't be used to negate a command, but can otherwise appear in an imperative, so TKD didn't explain this very well. (Those links have already been posted here but I'm replying to this thread so that someone following just this thread on the mailing list or the archive will see the answer.) -- De'vID