tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 11 15:55:27 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-qa'} (was Re: DI'vI' Hol)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: {-qa'} (was Re: DI'vI' Hol)
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 18:54:55 -0400
96-10-11 13:58:40 EDT, jatlh ghunchu'wI':
> >However, I don't say that {-qa'} implies a change of state by analogy with
> >{-choH}; TKD itself says that! 4.2.3, Type 3: Change. "Suffixes of this
> >type indicate that the action described by the verb involves a change of
> some
> >kind from the state of affairs that existed before the action took
place."
>
> HIvqa' veqlargh. TKD indeed makes this pronouncement.
Haa haa haa hee hee ho ho haaa!!! (Imagine a huge Klingon belly-laugh here.)
Of course!!! There's an example of what is probably a
non-change-of-state-of-affairs: {HIvqa' veqlargh}! (And I bet you didn't
even realize that when you wrote it! :)
Actually, I've mentioned this problem once before: could it possibly mean
that the Fek'lhr has "resumed" attacking again? It's possible. Otherwise, I
can see two possibilities here: (1) Okrand, using his dictionary or his notes
(you *know* he does this), sees that {-qa'} means "again," and makes the same
mistake that everyone else has; or (2) Okrand really intended the "do again"
meaning. (I guess I just don't want to give up on this. :)
> If we *have* been misusing the verb suffix {-qa'}, we've been doing it
> for a very long time. I suspect it might be extremely difficult to
> change the communal habit of rendering "Say again?" as {yIja'qa'}.
Do'Ha'.
SuStel
Stardate 96780.1