tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 21 17:04:35 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

multiple rovers

• From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
• Subject: multiple rovers
• Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 20:06:02 -0500

peHruS wrote (quite a while ago):
>Is there any acceptance of or prohibition against using both the Verb Suffix
>Rover {-Ha'} and the Verb Suffix Rover {-be'} together.  For example, is
>jIQuchHa'be' acceptable?

There's no canon that I know of that uses {-Ha'be'}, but its meaning should
usually be clear.  TKD 4.3 says rovers can come pretty much anywhere except
after a Type 9 suffix, and the examples on page 49 show that {-qu'be'} is
acceptable.  *I* would accept {-Ha'be'} unless there were a simpler way to
say the same thing.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

• Prev by Date: Re: nuqneH
• Next by Date: Re: KLBC: several questions
• Prev by thread: *BG* chu'
• Next by thread: Reival's log (yet another installment)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level