tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 11 16:35:15 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yongHa' (was Re: Klingon WOTD: lel (v))
jIja'pu':
> Okrand once commented that {jotlhHa'} isn't just "put up"; it's more like
> "put back up (after having taken down)". Because of that, and because of
> the existence of verb {Haw'}, I interpret {yongHa'} as "get back in", i.e.
HIvqa' veqlargh. {yongHa'} would of course be "get (back) out".
ja' peHruS:
> Please analyze {lIt} and {lItHa'} and see if they follow this logic well
> enough to back up your theory.
nuqjatlh? ngerwIj'e' perta' 'Iv jay'? ngoDvam wIbuS 'e' ra' Okrand'e'.
"My" theory? It's Okrand who emphasized the "undo" idea.
Anyway, the example we have of {lItHa'} seems to fit the pattern quite
well. Telling a pet to "get off" something implies that it must have
gotten on it first, does it not?
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh