Re: [tlhIngan Hol] placement of {-be'} relative to the {-pu'} and {-ta'}

18 Sep 2019

      On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 15:24, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
...
I've always wondered with regards to the placement of the {-be'}
relative to the {-pu'} and {-ta'}.
As far as the {-pu'} is concerned, since the tkd has the Ca'Non
example of {vIta'pu'be'}, I decided to *always* write {-pu'be'}
instead of {-be'pu'}.
TKD says "It follows the concept being negated". Here, {vIta'pu'} "I did
it" is the concept.

Before I continue, does anyone have something to comment on the above ?
...
And now I continue..
However, I'm still puzzled as far as the placement of the {-be'}
relative to the {-ta'} is concerned.
Since {-ta'} is the same suffix type as {-pu'}, why would you expect it to
work any differently with respect to {-be'}?

-- 
De'vID