luis chaparro:

2. If I want to say *She hasn't sold it*, I can say *ngevpu'be'*. What would *ngevta'be'* mean? That she set out to sell it, but she didn't accomplished it? Has *-ta'be'* always the meaning of failing? Or can we also use it just to negate that an action took place?

If you'd like you could check out these discussions: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2019-September/013132.ht... http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2020-April/014757.html http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2020-April/014866.html -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

On 11/19/2021 9:07 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:

1. Is there anything wrong in using *'op* with inherently plural nouns, for example: *'op ngop*? The whole construction would remain grammatically singular, right?

I don't think we have a definitive answer to this question. Personally, I have no problem with *'op ngop* meaning exactly what you say. I believe we do know that you can use numbers with inherently plural nouns, so I see no reason you can't use number-like nouns in the same way.

2. If I want to say*She hasn't sold it*, I can say *ngevpu'be'*. What would *ngevta'be'* mean? That she set out to sell it, but she didn't accomplished it? Has *-ta'be'* always the meaning of failing? Or can we also use it just to negate that an action took place?

*-be'* seems to have a variable scope. Sometimes it applies directly to the element it's attached to; sometimes it applies to everything that comes before it. *ngevpu'be'* and *ngevta'be'* probably mean "not *ngevpu'*" and "not *ngevta'*." I generally try not to think of suffix combinations as single units. It might not be useful to think of *-pu'be'* and *-ta'be'* as having distinct meanings from *-pu'* and *-ta',* because the *-be'* may not apply only to *-pu'* and *-ta'.***If I were to give a literal interpretation to *-pu'be'* and *-ta'be',* it would be "not perfective," which would seem to mean exactly the same thing as not including the perfective suffix at all, and so not be a useful combination.

3. To someone whose decision in a certain situation can have important consequences, I can say*Be responsible!*. That would be, I think, *yIngoy''eghmoH*. But if, speaking to an inmature person, I say *Get responsible!* or *Become responsible!*, would it be *yIngoy''eghchoHmoH* or just *yIngoy'choH*? (I know there is the verb *moj*, but I would like to know how the imperative of state / quality verbs works).

I'd go with *yIngoy''eghchoHmoH,* but canon is inconsistent with the *-'eghmoH* rule when it comes to including *-choH.* If you use the *yIngoy'choH,* it will likely be accepted by whoever reads or hears it. What Klingons would think of it, I don't know. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name