[tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: yItlhHa'

[De'vID]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 18:24, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 17:49, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:

> The use of the suffix {-Ha'} does not imly that the situation or the
> > action was different before. It's just the opposite meaning.
>
> While there are some canonical examples that may suggest this to be the
> case (words like {jaQHa'} come to mind), the original description in TKD
> suggests that it requires either an undoing of a previous state/action, or
> that something is done wrongly:
>
> "This negative suffix implies not merely that something is not done (as
> does -be'), but that there is a change of state: something that was
> previously done is now undone. For convenience, it will here be translated
> as "undo", but it is closer to the English prefixes mis-, de-, dis- (as in
> "misunderstand", "demystify", "disentangle"). It is also used if somethign
> is done wrongly. Unlie -be', -Ha' can be used in imperatives."
>

Having gone through every canon instance of {-Ha'} I could find, I'm now
convinced that the original description in TKD is wrong. Either it's very
incomplete, or Okrand changed his mind. {-Ha'} seems to indicate the
opposite meaning (opposite state or action) most of the time, and only
rarely an undoing or an error.

TKD 4.4 also says that {-qu'} is the only verb suffix possible on a verb
which is acting adjectivally (by following a noun), which means {-Ha'}
isn't allowed. However, canon contradicts this with {SuvwI' quvHa'} (HQ
12:3) and {Duj ngaDHa'} (KGT). (Incidentally, {-be'} appears to be possible
too, as we also have {wa'maH yIHmey lI'be'} (PK). So the rule isn't that
only {-qu'} is allowed, but that only rovers are allowed.)

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190325/f08c5e14/attachment.htm>