tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 09 13:58:02 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Rovers

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: Rovers
• Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 16:57:48 EDT

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 6/9/2005 4:53:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:


> The subject of rovers came up recently, noting that {-Ha'} was a special 
> case. Actually, I don't think it is a special case. All rovers have one 
> thing in common: They don't follow the normal rules of verb suffixes. 
> Instead, each of them has its own rule:
> 
> -Ha': always comes first after the verb
> -Qo': always comes last after all other suffixes
> -be': follows whatever it negates.
> 
> In fact, the most controversial of the three is the most commonly used: 
> {-be'}. The controversial aspect is that most people, including myself, 
> think that it negates the syllable it follows (be that a suffix or a verb 
> root). This makes for a nice, clear grammar without stupidly unnecessary 
> ambiguity.
> 

'e' vIparHa'qu'.

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Rovers
    • From: bob mcfaddin <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Rovers
• Next by Date: Mr. Charles, wISuchqapu'
• Previous by thread: Re: Rovers
• Next by thread: Re: Rovers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level