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

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Thu Mar 21 06:31:17 PDT 2019

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:13, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems to me that {-Ha'} acts differently depending on whether the verb
> is a verb of quality (a "to be" verb) or an action, and whether it is
> reversible or not (or to put it another way, whether the opposite state or
> action is considered to be related to the original verb by a reversal).
> Here are examples of the four possible verb types:
> {ghungHa'} "be unhungry" (be satiated, as being hungry is a state which
> can be undone or reversed)
> {jaQHa'} "be shallow" (while the act of making something deep is
> reversible, being deep itself is not, so this is just the opposite state)
> {jotlhHa'} "put back up" ({jotlh} is considered to have a reverse or
> opposite action)
> {jatlhHa'} "misspeak" ({jatlh} is not reversible or has no opposite, so
> this has to be interpreted as "speak wrongly")
> I think that {jotlhHa'} *cannot* be interpreted as "take down wrongly" and
> {jatlhHa'} *cannot* be understood as "un-speak". Of course, for some verbs,
> it may not be possible to tell based on the definition whether Klingons
> consider them to be reversible or not, like {'ey}.
> Now someone will post canon counterexamples which prove my observation
> wrong.

Really? No objections or counterexamples? Are most people on away missions?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190321/5ecc55d1/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list