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." Consider also Marc Okrand's comments on the words {parHa'}, and the distinction between {QuchHa'} and {'IQ}: http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-03-02a-news.txt He has also suggested that {jotlhHa'} doesn't just mean "put up", but rather "put back up". http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-04-07-email.txt ... and the difference between {ghungbe'} and {ghungHa'}: http://klingonska.org/canon/2011-11-15b-email.txt Then there are his comments in KGT about {'eyHa'}, {tlhorghHa'} and {jejHa']}: "All food is considered to be good in its natural state; it takes the intervention of a "cook" to ruin it. Thus, the word 'eyHa', used to describe food that is edible but is not particularly tasty, means something like "undelicious", implying that someone caused it to cease being delicious." "To the Klingon palate, the best food tasts tlhorgh ("pungent"; though some non-Klingons may prefer to translate the word as "rank" or "gamy"). The opposite of tlhorgh is tlhorghHa', conventionally translated as "bland" but literally meaning unpungent," the implication being that the natural punch has somehow been taken out of the food as a result of how it was prepared. The same ideas are often expressed idiomatically. When talking about the quality of a dish, one may say jej pach ("The claw is sharp"; that is, the food is pungent) or jejHa' pach ("The claw is dull"; in orther words, the food is bland, where jejHa' ["dull"] really means something like "de-sharpened"). //loghaD ________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 17:49 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: yItlhHa' Am 18.03.2019 um 17:33 schrieb nIqolay Q:

I wonder about the use of {-Ha'} here, since it's possible to be lenient or indulgent without having been strict first.

The use of the suffix {-Ha'} does not imly that the situation or the action was different before. It's just the opposite meaning.

Could the use of the {-Ha'} imply that, to the Klingon mindset, everyone is strict by default, and leniency is an undoing of that state?

No, it just means what it says. yItlhHa' is the opposite of yItlh. Does the English word "disobey" mean that everyone obeys by default? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/TheLittlePrince _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 1:24 PM Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> 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:

Based on {jaQHa'}, {yItlhHa'}, and so on, I've suspected for a while that {-Ha'} has expanded to include the idea of "the exact opposite quality", at least in some cases. There's never been any confirmation one way or another, though, so I've been reluctant to use it that way. For now, I have it mentally filed away as an idiomatic usage of verb suffixes, like {HIvneS}. Or maybe it's an expansion of the "wrongly" meaning -- being lenient is definitely the wrong way to be strict. Maybe someone could ask MO about it at the next qep'a'.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:13, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@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? -- De'vID

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 23:03, DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Why do you think that jotlhHa' *cannot* be "take down wrongly"?

"He took down the tapestry wrongly and tore it." "He took down the flag wrongly and dishonored it."

I'm not saying this is what jotlhHa' means, I'm just questioning the "cannot" part of the argument.

For that *particular* verb, primarily because Okrand essentially said so, by omission. Okrand was asked specifically about {jotlhHa'}, which means he had the opportunity to point out that it *could* also mean "take down wrongly", but he didn't do so. Now, he could've just forgotten about that sense of {-Ha'} in that one instance, but he was also asked about {molHa'}, and he defined that as "dig up" and not "bury wrongly". He's done this not once, not twice, but dozens of times. Looking at all the {-Ha'} verbs in canon, there seems to be a fairly clear pattern. Verbs of quality ("be verbs"): {baw'Ha'} "be uncomfortable, be worried, be hesitant" {belHa'} "be displeased" {churHa'} "be comfortable (physically)" {DochHa'} "be polite, civil, courteous" {ghanHa'} "peaceful, calm" {jaQHa'} "be shallow" {jejHa'} "be dull, be blunt (of blades)" {jotHa'} "be uneasy" {matlhHa'} "be disloyal" {mobHa'} "be even (used in math)" {pIlHa'} "be unmotivated" [not defined, but used to translate "apathy" for KCC] {pIQHa'} "be indirect, be roundabout, be devious" {quvHa'} "be dishonored" {QeyHa'} "be loose" {rIjHa'} "be adrift" {ru'Ha'} "be permanent" {varHa'} "be generous" {vey'Ha'} "be uncomfortable, be meager" {yepHa'} "be careless" {yItlhHa'} "be lenient, indulgent" {yuDHa'} "be honest" {'umHa'} "be unqualified" Note that none of the above are defined as "be wrongly [whatever]". Every single one is just the opposite quality. In the following cases, we're specifically told that the state is a reversal: {Do'Ha'} "be unfortunate" (suggests turn of luck from good to bad) {ghungHa'} "be satiated (no longer hungry)" {QuchHa'} "be unhappy" (suggests change from being happy to not being happy) {'ojHa'} "be quenched (no longer thirsty)" {'eyHa'} "be undelicious" (someone caused it to cease being delicious) {tlhorghHa'} "be bland (referring to food)" (someone caused it to cease being pungent) Possibly this reversal applies to some of the verbs in the first list, but we can't tell unless we're told. But in any case, {DochHa'} means "be polite" and not, say, "wrongly rude", and so on. Action verbs which are opposites or reversals of other actions: {baghHa'} "crack a code" {boqHa'} "subtract (used in math)" {buSHa'} "ignore" {chenHa'} "untake form" {chu'Ha'} "disengage, deactivate (a device)" {ghomHa'} "scatter, disperse" {jonHa'} "release" {jotlhHa'} "put back up" {lay'Ha'} "break one's word" {lInHa'} "go offline" {lItHa'} "get off (of)" {lobHa'} "disobey" {molHa'} "dig up" {muSHa'} "love" {naDHa'} "discommend, disapprove" {nobHa'} "give back, return" {parHa'} "like" {polHa'} "discard" {qeHHa'} "forgive, unresent" {qImHa'} "disregard" {SaHHa'} "be unconcerned (about)" {SorHa'} "speak metaphorically" {So'Ha'} "unhide, decloak; decrypt" {tungHa'} "encourage" {vIbHa'} "move through time toward the past" {voqHa'} "distrust" {wuqHa'} "commute (a judicial sentence)" {'otHa'} "disclose, divulge" {'uchHa'} "let go of" Again, none of the above are defined as "do [whatever] wrongly". Action verbs which are erroneous actions: {bachHa'} "err, make a mistake" (literally, to "misfire") {jatlhHa'} "misspeak, speak wrongly" {pabHa'} "misfollow [the rules], follow [the rules] wrongly" {qawHa'} "misremember, remember incorrectly" {yajHa'} "misinterpret" None of *these* are defined as "undo [whatever]". {jatlhHa'}, for example, is not "take back one's words", and {yajHa'} is not "no longer understand". {qawHa'} is slightly subtle in that one might think it means "forget", but the opposite or reversal of bringing a memory to mind is not to fail to bring it to mind in the first place (for which we have {lIj}). I think one way to think about this is that if a verb is at 1 on the number line, then verb+{-be'} is at 0, and verb+{-Ha'} is at -1. For each verb, verb+{-Ha'} is the most opposite state or action of that verb, and that depends on the verb (or the class of verb). For states or qualities, it's the opposite. For actions, it's the opposite or reversed action in cases where such a thing exists, and an erroneous action otherwise. If you think about it, while {-Ha'} can mean both "undo" and "do wrongly", it doesn't really make sense for it to be possible to have both meanings on the same verb. If it did, then how would I know if you meant "be unmotivated" or "be wrongly motivated" (be motivated but in a bad way, or for the wrong reason)? How would I say that the judge has commuted ({wuqHa'}) my sentence, rather than that he had wrongly decided upon my sentence (a rather important legal distinction)? Of course, language *can* be ambiguous, but in this case, I think the dozens of examples from canon strongly suggests a pattern. I think this is one of those cases where TKD offers a bare sketch, but we actually have a lot of canon examples to justifiably derive something which is almost a rule. -- De'vID

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 05:35, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:28 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

If you think about it, while {-Ha'} can mean both "undo" and "do wrongly", it doesn't really make sense for it to be possible to have both meanings on the same verb. If it did, then how would I know if you meant "be unmotivated" or "be wrongly motivated" (be motivated but in a bad way, or for the wrong reason)? How would I say that the judge has commuted ({wuqHa'}) my sentence, rather than that he had wrongly decided upon my sentence (a rather important legal distinction)? Of course, language *can* be ambiguous, but in this case, I think the dozens of examples from canon strongly suggests a pattern. I think this is one of those cases where TKD offers a bare sketch, but we actually have a lot of canon examples to justifiably derive something which is almost a rule.

I like your inferred rules for *-Ha'*, but allow me to suggest a qualification. Perhaps, rather than an unambiguous interpretation, a verb plus *-Ha'* has a strongly preferred interpretation that follows the pattern you lay out. The listener who isn't being deliberately obtuse will reject any other interpretation unless the speaker gives cues to indicate it. This would be rather like intentional ungrammaticality. Wouldn't it make more sense to understand *mu'mey Dajatlhpu'bogh DajatlhHa'laHbe'* as "You cannot *unspeak* words you have spoken" rather than *misspeak*?

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. I wonder if {jatlhHa'} in the "undo" sense could work in the same way? That is, would this make sense: {mu'mey Dajatlhpu'bogh *vI*jatlhHa'laHbe'}? -- De'vID

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

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 05:35, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:28 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

If you think about it, while {-Ha'} can mean both "undo" and "do wrongly", it doesn't really make sense for it to be possible to have both meanings on the same verb. If it did, then how would I know if you meant "be unmotivated" or "be wrongly motivated" (be motivated but in a bad way, or for the wrong reason)? How would I say that the judge has commuted ({wuqHa'}) my sentence, rather than that he had wrongly decided upon my sentence (a rather important legal distinction)? Of course, language *can* be ambiguous, but in this case, I think the dozens of examples from canon strongly suggests a pattern. I think this is one of those cases where TKD offers a bare sketch, but we actually have a lot of canon examples to justifiably derive something which is almost a rule.

I like your inferred rules for *-Ha'*, but allow me to suggest a qualification. Perhaps, rather than an unambiguous interpretation, a verb plus *-Ha'* has a strongly preferred interpretation that follows the pattern you lay out. The listener who isn't being deliberately obtuse will reject any other interpretation unless the speaker gives cues to indicate it. This would be rather like intentional ungrammaticality. Wouldn't it make more sense to understand *mu'mey Dajatlhpu'bogh DajatlhHa'laHbe'* as "You cannot *unspeak* words you have spoken" rather than *misspeak*?

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.

I wonder if {jatlhHa'} in the "undo" sense could work in the same way? That is, would this make sense: {mu'mey Dajatlhpu'bogh *vI*jatlhHa'laHbe'}?

Yes. I can't unspeak your words. I can misspeak them, of course, so *unspeak* makes more sense here. Consider this: *noymo' mu'meylIj jatlhHa'laH pagh.* Does it mean "because your words are famous, no one can misspeak them" or "unspeak them"? I'd suggest that idea expressed covers both meanings, that it's tolerable ambiguity. Perhaps to the Klingon mind there's a continuum between undoing and doing wrongly, so *-Ha'* covers both. (The grammatical role of *mu'meylIj* is also tolerably ambiguous; it makes equal sense as the subject of *noy* or as the object of *jatlh*.) So your interpretation of *-Ha'* for each class of verbs is very useful, as long as it's not applied rigidly. ~mIp'av

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 17:44, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

(Qov, 7/29/2013): [Okrand] appears to agree that this implies {Sor} means speak literally, and that this is connected to the expression {lugh: Sor rur} ["correct as a tree"]. The pun with sure appears from his reaction to be intentional.

We actually know what the pun is, and "sure" ain't it. But I won't say it, as I think people should try to figure it out on their own. (It is found on this mailing list if one wants to cheat.) -- De'vID

On Mar 25, 2019, at 04:51, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

So the rule isn't that only {-qu'} is allowed, but that only rovers are allowed.)

Did {-Qo'} show up as well? I guess that wouldn’t make sense semantically, so I expect it wouldn’t. I wonder if that (and maybe other rover-only things) why {-Ha'} and {-Qo'} are classiford with the true rovers {-qu'} and {-be'}, even though they don’t really rove.

...

On Mar 25, 2019, at 08:44, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:27, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

...

On Mar 25, 2019, at 04:51, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

So the rule isn't that only {-qu'} is allowed, but that only rovers are allowed.)

Did {-Qo'} show up as well? I guess that wouldn’t make sense semantically, so I expect it wouldn’t. I wonder if that (and maybe other rover-only things) why {-Ha'} and {-Qo'} are classiford with the true rovers {-qu'} and {-be'}, even though they don’t really rove.

You're right, it's only {-qu'}, {-Ha'}, and {-be'} (AFAIK). I'd forgotten that {-Qo'} also counts as a rover.

Are there any canon examples of {-Qo'} being used together with a type two verb suffix? It semantically seems to fit with {-qang}, at least, so I wonder if it “roved” from historically being a type 2 to being something else. I guess {SuvvIpQo' SuvwI'na'} would make sense as something useful to say, so maybe not. I was originally thinking it wouldn’t make sense, semantically, for a stative verb acting like an adjective to take {-Qo'}, since it seems volitiony without officially being a volition suffix, and volition with a state seems weird, but I’m not totally sure any more. Can a person {'IQQo'}, for example? Assuming one can, {'IQQo'bogh HoD} still seems like it makes more sense than *{HoD 'IQQo'}, though, if we are to hypothesize that rovers generally may follow a stative-verb-acting-as-an-adjective.

I’ve long believed that {-Ha’} and {-Qo’} are classified as rovers simply because Klingon linguists dislike creating an entire category for a single member. They already had to do this with {-moH} as Type 4, because its position is specific, in the middle of the other suffixes. This was a chance to have ten categories, instead of 12, with 1/10 of the categories having a single member, instead of 1/4 of them having single members. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Mar 25, 2019, at 8:27 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

...

On Mar 25, 2019, at 04:51, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

So the rule isn't that only {-qu'} is allowed, but that only rovers are allowed.)

Did {-Qo'} show up as well? I guess that wouldn’t make sense semantically, so I expect it wouldn’t. I wonder if that (and maybe other rover-only things) why {-Ha'} and {-Qo'} are classiford with the true rovers {-qu'} and {-be'}, even though they don’t really rove. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> schrieb am Mo., 25. März 2019, 16:18:

I like to internally think of {-Ha'} as type 0 and {-Qo'} as type 8.5,

I do the same. although {-Ha'} has been seen coming after other suffixes in canon. (I

don’t remember the exact skybox card offhand.)

{tuQmoHHa'}? That's from HolQeD 2:4 (and probably an error). -- De'vID

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:17 AM Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

It took me a moment to figure out that “rover” was the tenth category, but {-moH} isn’t the only singleton; there’s {-neS} as well.

I've seen (and heard) another Type 8 suffix used on a few occasions. It's not in any dictionaries, and it's possible that I'm the only one who noticed it. Its context has been similar to the use of a {bang pong}, and I will respect its users' privacy. -- ghunchu'wI'

(TKD 174): This is an infrequently used, but nonetheless very interesting, noun suffix. <...> The suffix usually follows a noun referring to a relative (mother, father, etc.), but it could also follow a noun for an animal, especially a pet, and means that the speaker is particularly fond of whatever the noun refers to. It is strongly suggested that non-native speakers of Klingon avoid this suffix unless they know what they are getting into. (KGT 198f): Within the family, a child usually addresses his or her mother as {SoS} (Mother) and father as {vav} (Father), though it is not uncommon for younger children to use the words {SoSoy} (Mommy) and {vavoy} (Daddy). These are the regular words for mother and father followed by the suffix {-oy}, which indicates endearment. Most older children drop the {-oy} around the time of their Age of Ascension, though some continue to use it even after that, especially when addressing the parent of the opposite sex. By the same token, a parent may address a son as {puqloDoy} and a daughter as {puqbe'oy}. As with the terms for parents, the {-oy} form is seldom used past the child's Age of Ascension. Though almost always heard as terms of direct address (as in {Sosoy jIghung} ["Mommy, I'm hungry"]), kinship terms with the suffix {-oy} are occasionally used as subjects or objects of sentences, particularly in the speech of younger children. For example, a proud child may say, {SuvwI' ghaH vavoy'e'} ("My daddy is a warrior"). The word for husband is {loDnal} and that for wife is {be'nal}. Though there are occasional exceptions, for the most part, neither of these words... typically takes the suffix of endearment {-oy} (as in {be'naloy} ["wifey"]). (KGT 201): A bang pong is formed by attaching {-oy}, the suffix indicating endearment, to an everyday noun. Most of the resulting terms make very little sense to anyone not in the particular relationship, and none translates well. Some pet terms are based on words for kinds of food, such as {chatlhoy} and {'awje'oy}. Perhaps these words could be rendered in Federation Standard as "soupy" and "poppy" (from soda pop), though neither translation conveys the intimacy and intensity of the Klingon. Other terms consist of words for weapons plus {-oy}: for example: {yanoy, HIchoy, tajoy, jorwI'oy}. A third type involves body parts, Klingon or otherwise, as in {'uSoy, 'aDoy, pIpoy, pachoy}. Another term based on a body part, {Ho'oy}, is one of the few that makes sense to a non-Klingon if it is remembered that {Ho'} is a slang term for hero, idol. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dadap As for {bang pongmey}, I’ve often wondered how these are formed. We know they exist since there’s a word for them, but AFAIK we don’t know much about how to make or use them, apart from maybe using {-oy} or the additional type 8 you’ve referenced. Are there conventions for deriving nicknames from full names? Simple shortenings like “Alex”, “Chris”, “Kate”, or “Pat”, suffixes with possible shortenings like “Andy”, “Davey”, “Jenny”, or “Missy”, rhymes and/or letter replacements with possible shortenings like “Bill”, “Bob”, “Dick”, or “Peg”? I’d especially be interested if there are some commonly known, not formulaically derivable nicknames like the Spanish language “Chuy” for “Jesús” or “Pepe” for “José”. Or if {bang pongmey} aren’t based on names, what kind of imagery do Klingons favor for names of endearment? In English we seem to like sweet things: “honey”, “cupcake”, “sweety”, etc., it sometimes flora and fauna like “buttercup”, “bunny”, etc. Do Klingons endearingly call each other names of animals? Weapons? Foodstuffs? Furniture? I suppose we’ll likely not get answers, but if anything like HQ or KGT ever gets started up again it would be an interesting topic to explore.

This is why I post these things. Sometimes Okrand mentions a topic in more than one place in KGT. (Too bad there's no index to find all of them!) And sometimes people just don't have a copy of KGT available. --Voragh -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Dadap

On Mar 26, 2019, at 09:24, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

(KGT 201): A bang pong is formed by attaching {-oy}, the suffix indicating endearment, to an everyday noun. Most of the resulting terms make very little sense to anyone not in the particular relationship, and none translates well. Some pet terms are based on words for kinds of food, such as {chatlhoy} and {'awje'oy}. Perhaps these words could be rendered in Federation Standard as "soupy" and "poppy" (from soda pop), though neither translation conveys the intimacy and intensity of the Klingon. Other terms consist of words for weapons plus {-oy}: for example: {yanoy, HIchoy, tajoy, jorwI'oy}. A third type involves body parts, Klingon or otherwise, as in {'uSoy, 'aDoy, pIpoy, pachoy}. Another term based on a body part, {Ho'oy}, is one of the few that makes sense to a non-Klingon if it is remembered that {Ho'} is a slang term for hero, idol.

Thanks. I think my email client needs an “It looks like you’re asking a question on the KLI mailing list. Did you look in KGT?” reminder, like the kind that nags you when you say “attached” but don’t include a file attachment. I must have read that at some point and had it fall through the sieve which is my memory, since I seemed to have some notion in my head that food items and weapons would be suitable material for names of endearment. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Although it’s been an interesting discussion I’ve lost track of this thread and don’t remember if it’s been mentioned, but surely this isn’t an example of “undo” but rather “do wrongly”. {yItlhHa’} to be insufficiently strict - that is to “be strict wrongly” - is to be lenient and/or indulgent by Klingon warrior standards: i.e. “Spare the painstik, spoil the child!” --Voragh From: nIqolay Q I wonder about the use of {-Ha'} here, since it's possible to be lenient or indulgent without having been strict first. Could the use of the {-Ha'} imply that, to the Klingon mindset, everyone is strict by default, and leniency is an undoing of that state? On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:00 AM Klingon Word of the Day <kwotd@wizage.net<mailto:kwotd@wizage.net>> wrote: Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, March 16, 2019 Klingon word: yItlhHa' Part of speech: verb Definition: lenient, indulgent Source: The Little Prince This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh@kli.org<mailto:qurgh@kli.org>). _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org