tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 28 14:44:36 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: semiotic continua (was "RE: KLBC: winners/losers")
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: semiotic continua (was "RE: KLBC: winners/losers")
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:44:30 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Lawrence writes:
>Consider the following task:
>
>You have a continuum with <<Qap>> and <<luj>> as the end points. Where along
>this line, and in what order, will you lay out <<Qapbe', QapHa', QapHa'be',
>lujbe', lujHa'>>, and <<lujHa'be'>>? There's potential for some very subtle
>distinctions in meaning here (most especially because of <<-Ha'>>).
>
>Just thought I'd try and stir something up for the weekend.
I don't see the suffix {-Ha'} as always fitting neatly along a line
between two opposites. It often skews the meaning off the line for
me. Since there is a word {luj} which means the opposite of {Qap},
I tend to think more of the "do wrongly" meaning of {-Ha'}.
{QapHa'} implies to me something like "malfunction". I don't see it
as quite in the spectrum between "succeed" and "fail". {lujHa'} for
me sounds as if someone failed at failing -- like "The Producers" in
the Mel Brooks film of that name.
So I'd put them in the order {Qap, Qapbe', lujbe', luj} with
{QapHa', QapHa'be', lujHa'be', lujHa'} roughly parallel to it.
-- ghunchu'wI'