tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 23 05:12:17 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: easy sentences
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: easy sentences
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 14:13:12 MEZ
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "William H. Martin" at Jan 20, 95 6:03 pm
- Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
>
> As best that I can understand it, {-Ha'} generally indicates an
> assertive negative where {-be'} can be a passive negative. The
> best single example I can think of is the difference between
> qayajbe' and qayajHa'. The first means, "I don't understand
> you." The second means, "I misunderstand you." See?
>
> The same is true between jIDo'be' and jIDo'Ha'. The first
> means, "I am not lucky." The second means, "I am unlucky." The
> first is true if I lose a few credits at cards. The second is
> true if I lose my house, my ship and my first born son playing
> cards. There is a qualitative difference between {-be'} and
> {-Ha'}, but the sense of CHANGE is merely one possible form of
> it. Meanwhile, when you really want to express the sense of
> "change", you need {choH}.
>
> [...] the main thrust
> of {-Ha'} ... is to actively reverse the action of the root
> verb.
>
Maybe that is the point: I tried to reverse the action of
the whole verb - but then again I wouldn't want it to reverse
type 7 suffixes as well. Hmm. So I do agree now, that
-choHlaHbe' is correct.
However I still don't see your point about -Ha' not denoting
a change from positive to negative. Of all the meanings
Okrand gives us to approximately translate -Ha', which are
"undo", "mis-", "de-", "dis-" and "wrongly", three denote
a change ("undo", "de-" and "dis-"), while the other two
denote a wrong way of acting.
None of them seems to indicate a qualitative difference
between -be' and -Ha', the way you write above.
This is how I see the examples given:
misunderstand understand wrongly
demystify remove a previously existing myth
disentangle change from being entangled
chenHa' change from existing
chu'Ha' change from being activated
jatlhHa' speak wrongly
Do'Ha' turn of luck from good to bad
against:
not understand, not mystify, not entangle
not acting in the indicated manner
chenbe' not take shape
chu'be' not activate
jatlhbe' not speak
Do'be' being unlucky
The way you described Do'Ha' seems appropriate for Hiob
but I don't see this in section 4.3.
And another note about -pu':
Can we agree on the following?
QaHchoHlaHbe'pu' it has become unable to help
QaHchoHlaHbe'taH it is turning unable to help
QaHchoHlaHbe' it turns unable to help
i.e. the latter two describe the change (the first
emphasizing the progression) while the first one
describes the result of it.
> charghwI'
>
Qapla'
Marc 'Doychlangan'
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------