On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:55 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, that would be how I read that sentence.

That sense of {jatlhHa'} (undo speaking), that is, "taking back one's words", reminds me of {nobHa'}, which bothered me when I first encountered it. In the {nobHa'} example, {Huch nobHa'bogh verenganpu''e' yIvoqQo'}, the giver isn't the one undoing the giving; the recipient is. Before that example, I might've used {tlhapHa'} in that sentence instead of {nobHa'}, or at least been undecided between them.

My personal explanation is that the recipient has to initiate the un-giving because they're the one in possession of the item now, and that un-giving, like giving, is supposed to be voluntary. Though it's probably just an idiomatic interpretation; the -Ha' suffix seems to create a lot of those. I don't think jatlhHa' in the sense of "take back saying something" would work the same way.

On another note, using both meanings of -Ha' on the same verb provides some fun opportunities for wordplay:

bIjatlhHa'pu' 'ej DajatlhHa'laHbe'. You have said the wrong thing and you can't take it back.

(This sentence is probably not very beginner-friendly.)