Re: -bogh and -wI'

["Lieven L. Litaer" <lieven@handshake.de>]

>I put the <-be'> after <-nIS>, so it negates the <-nIS>. I think part of
the
>problem is that we really want the <-moH> to go right after the verb so we
>can think of <lughmoH> as a single unit, but the language doesn't work
Yes, I got rid of that thought some time ago already. It used to confuse me
when I saw stuff like {Say'moH} "clean" and make it to *Say'moHnIS* ("need
to clean"). But now that I got used to the correct form, the wrong one
sounds as bad to me as... well, let's not give bad examples :-)

>is fixed, the order in which the *meanings* of the suffixes apply is
>flexible.
Yes, one needs to stop thinking in english.

>vIlughnISbe'moH
>I do not need to make it correct / I do not need to correct it - perfect.
That's what I understood.

>vIlughnISmoHbe'
>I do not cause it to need to be correct ??!?!? - this one doesn't make any
>sense to me.
Because you are able to think in klingon. In english, "not" is just added to
the sentence:
      like
{jIlegh} - "I see"
{jIleghbe'} - "I DO NOT see"
      I get
{vIlughnISmoH} - "I need to correct it"
*vIlughnISmoHbe'* - "I DO NOT need to correct it"

You see how I think? I'm probably still thinking too much the english way.
chaq jIbuStaHvIS tlhInagn Hol neH vIlo'nIS.

-rIn-
Quvar muHwI'