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."

TKD also uses the example sentence Do'Ha', and comments "The use of -Ha' in this sentence suggests a turn of luck from good to bad."

I think Okrand's terminology is a bit loose here. He describes, for example, -Ha' as a change of state, but that's -choH. I think what he's trying to do is explain the difference between -Ha' and -be'. A word isn't simply negated by -Ha', he's saying, but its sense actually goes in the opposite direction.

So Do'Ha' means not necessarily that the subject had been particularly Do' and was switching to Do'Ha', but that Do'Ha' is less Do' than simply Do'be'. It's active movement in the opposite direction. The "undoing" may be more virtual than real.

So yItlhHa' be lenient, indulgent is more than just someone who lacks the quality of strictness; it's someone who is actively lenient, the very opposite idea.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name