I was just thinking . . . if -Daq and other such noun suffixes can appear at the end of stative verbs that follow the nouns, aren't they really clitics instead of "noun suffixes"?

>Remember that {-Daq} et al. exhibit sine other surprising behaviors (at least to this English speaker).  It appears on cardinal numbers, at least in 

>proper names:

>

> nImbuS wejDaq 'ejDo' 'entepray' ngeHlu'pu'

>  The starship Enterprise has been dispatched to Nimbus III [ST5]

>

>  Qo'noS wa'Daq baHta' ['entepray']

>  Enterprise fired on Kronos One...  [ST6]

>

>Also, "If a Type 5 noun suffix is used ? it follows the verb, which, when used to modify the noun in this way, can have no other suffix except the 

>rover {-qu'} emphatic. The Type 5 noun suffix follows {-qu'} ... {veng tInqu'Daq} ?in the very big city" [TKD p.50].  In other words, {-Daq} attaches 

>to the quality modifying a noun, not the noun itself.  More examples:

>

>  veng tInDaq

>    in the big city  [TKD]

>

>  wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap

>    We succeed together in a greater whole.  [TKW]

>

>  batlh maHeghbej 'ej yo' qIjDaq vavpu'ma' DImuv

>    Then we die with honor and join our fathers in the Black Fleet...  [Anthem]

>

>If it helps, think of {qep?a? wejDIch} as the proper, official name of the qep?a? - i.e. the Third [KLI] Conference ? a sort of inseparable phrase.

>

>--

>Voragh