On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 18:24, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 17:49, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@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