tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 15 04:37:38 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Marc Okrand about Into Darkness
- From: "De'vID" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Marc Okrand about Into Darkness
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:37:17 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=JSco/BN9axXAsNQWAMbaECVBGgAVIW+Jb0vDziDRMdA=; b=miszVJQSUL5Qg2Dv0NW01+ykWFLt920N1Q6oseGnxCglAgF1gzmeQG6V89YpsWfzLw bytratZw/ynCPy8dkE2+/Eq5I14MslUlj6Rz4CDZochMbAl70D9K1Uvbe3DZnktFcXpB nEPMFOrXLYpgV37BvrBrTncl4kRu+L4Wd37J6V8vOgenJuzt6p3bt9Lalkvnigq4qUWU sxZAowdwZas2BGTJVWYCOwtCV1khJfqRQa2n4i1UiRszFotpWj9ZH4O1SlFcw+zp+Vzc +QlGoSTkGUlavXJHOL+Ku02fpnGg04MbBeGpadLlQ7HoJlOL/okKuUOvi5DKAFkpG2uY Sldg==
- In-reply-to: <CA+7zAmNWDTXnUyx4m6+Yq+Q5h3R262aJz1B008TKBQPurMaArQ@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/>
- List-id: <tlhingan-hol.kli.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
- References: <[email protected]> <CA+7zAmNWDTXnUyx4m6+Yq+Q5h3R262aJz1B008TKBQPurMaArQ@mail.gmail.com>
Quvar:
>> http://www.qephom.de/e/okrand_about_into_darkness.html
De'vID:
> "the stuff I had submitted had no new material, except for one half
> new word, which was jaSHa', meaning "similarly". "
>
> We sort of already knew this (from a msg dated 2012-08-30 from Qov),
> but it's nice to hear a confirmation from another occasion.
Digging up the message - from Qov (2012-08-30):
> Asked if jaSHa' and pe'vIlHa' were okay, Marc said, "Why wouldn't they be?"
> implying that -Ha' on adverbs is generally accepted, if the meaning is
> obvious. vajHa' has already been canonically rejected, but given the general
> confusion regarding what chaqHa' and rutHa' could mean, they were not
> accepted.
>
> SaH ghunchu'wI', 'angghal, QeS je. lutchaj vIja' neH.
I found an even older message about this - from Voragh (2006-12-20):
> Note that the postulated adverbial *{jaSHa'} "similarly, in the same way"
> does not exist. peHruS reported on a conversation he had with Okrand:
>
> At the 2000 qep'a' in conversation with MO, I went over the list
> I had prepared of adverbs + {-Ha'}. This was the very one which I
> was disappointed to learn from MO himself that it does NOT work.
> He never explained why. [...] Merely that (possibly not verbatim):
> "I don't think it works." He did not volunteer any other informa-
> tion about why it doesn't SEEM to work or what else would work.
>
> peHruS prepared his list after reading Okrand's comment in HolQeD 4.4:
>
> Whether this {-Ha'} can be added to all adverbials is not clear.
> The notes taken while working with Maltz indicate that he balked
> at {vajHa'} ("not thus?") but accepted {Do'Ha'} "unfortunately".
> Information on other adverbials has not yet been uncovered, though
> it is probably in the notes somewhere.
It seems that some time between 2000 and 2009, MO changed his mind on {jaSHa'}.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol