"You have injured me but you have not killed me."
Translation:chorIQmoHpu' 'ach choHoHta'be'.
If the intention is killing, then the intention is not injuring. One of these should probably have -pu' instead of -ta'. This sentence isn't strictly wrong, but it's unlikely.
The original had chorIQmoHpu' 'ach choHoHta'be', presumably indicating that the intention was to kill, which is unsuccessful, and not saying anything about whether the injuring was intentional.
I've now made that the only "best" translation for the English-to-Klingon sentence.
Concerning the order of the verb suffixes, I was a little surprised to see the -be' suffix on the end of choHoHta'be'. It seems to me that if we had been using the -pu' suffix on the same verb, the order would be choHoHbe'pu' (of course, I could be wrong about this, but choHoHpu'be' just sounds wrong to me at the moment).
I know that -be' is a rover, and should be attached to the particle or part of speech it is meant to negate. So, maybe the difference is that with -ta', it was the intention to kill, and at the same time, the completion of the act of killing, that was unsuccessful, and with -pu', it is more the act of killing itself that is negated than the completion of the act, since there was no stated intention (e.g., "you may have [unintentionally] injured me, but at least you didn't kill me")? Or, maybe I am reading too much into all this. :)
There is some canon to show that -be' doesn't always apply only to the single immediately preceding particle. vIta'pu'be' I didn't do it is canonical, as is batlh bIHeghbe' you will die without honor (this was before we had batlhHa').
So when you see -be', recognize that its scope might be larger than a single particle. choHoHta'be' and choHoHbe'ta' mean the same thing, so far as we know. In the latter case, the -be' only applies to the HoH. In the former, it applies to the verb and the preceding suffixes, HoHta'.
Ah, I didn't even consider that the -be' could have been moved back before the -ta' as I wrote that comment; I was too busy pondering the (mistaken) concept that choHoHta'be' was the one and only correct answer to this sentence. I know that's not necesarily the case, but when you're concentrating on trying to translate all of these verb (or noun) suffixes into Klingon in the correct order, and the entire translation is marked incorrect, and your construction doesn't match the one in the given translation, it's easy to look at it that way. Sometimes, the constructions are just wrong. But with rovers, it's a bit more tricky than that.
Thanks, guys. You are the best!
It is probably better to think that the -be' suffix negates the full concept before it and not just only the immediately preceding syllable. Certainly it cannot negate any suffixes that follow. But with suffixes that don't really make much sense negated, the -be' suffix is more likely negating the whole concept. So in this case, the -be' is negating the "you having accomplished killing me". If we put the negation right after the HoH it would sound like you had accomplished not killing me, which is a somewhat different thing than not having accomplished killing me.