[Tlhingan-hol] Multiple verb suffixes

[Robyn Stewart]

Having met 'eD and recalling one of his weaknesses, I suspect that he didn't
intentially misorder the suffices, that he wasn't actually proposing the
suffixes be ordered incorrectly, just trying to recall a sentence like:

DuHeghrupmoHlaH vs. DuHeghmoHlaH

To my reading -laH acts slightly differently in the two constructions, but I
won't give my interpretation so I don't bias yours.

- Qov 

-----Original Message-----
From: ghunchu'wI' [mailto:qunchuy at alcaco.net] 
Sent: April 14, 2014 21:01
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Multiple verb suffixes

On Apr 14, 2014, at 11:14 PM, "Bellerophon, modeler"
<bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com> wrote:

> I wish now I could remember the example someone on this list cited, in
which they interpreted a suffix as applying to the verb + the following
suffix. It seems like it was something along the lines of {lo'moHlaH},
interpreted as "make usable" instead of "can cause to use." At the time I
had no more reason to question this interpretation than a vague feeling.
> 
> It seems like the combined action of multiple suffixes would be an
important grammatical rule, though I have never seen one stated.

Power Klingon's suggested formula for declining an offered liaison:

DaH jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH
"I must wash my hair now."

Suffixes come in a specific order. That order does not always lend itself to
translation in that rigid order.

-- ghunchu'wI' 
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol