[Tlhingan-hol] {-Ha'} with {-Qo'}

[Fiat Knox]

jIQochbe'chu'.

The only thing you cannot get away with, from my read of my trusty TKD, is using -be' in an imperative. Otherwise, it is as my learned peers say.



>________________________________
> From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh at hotmail.com>
>To: "tlhingan-hol at kli.org" <tlhingan-hol at kli.org> 
>Sent: Saturday, 6 July 2013, 13:05
>Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] {-Ha'} with {-Qo'}
> 
>
>
> 
>ghItlhpu' Quvar, jatlh:
>> I'm not sure if my previous message came through, but I like to point at 
>
>> the examples in chapter 4.3 which use two Type Rover suffixes on one verb:
>
>> pIHoHvIpbe'qu'
>> pIHoHvIpqu'be'
>> pIHoHqu'vIpbe'
>
>Ahhh, now I see what De'vID's confusion was (about the TKD general prohibition on multiple affixes of the same class, I guess).
>
>Yes, as Quvar ably points out, multiple rovers on the same verb shouldn't be a problem. I see this as simply being because the rovers are only a "class" in the same way as the chuvmey are a "class", that is, they're defined only by their lack of membership in any other group.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20130706/a5d81f96/attachment-0001.html>