tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 16 07:17:19 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
{-Ha'} vs {-be'}
>From: [email protected]
>Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 22:54:20 -0400 (EDT)
>This topic has been amply discussed before, but it's still interesting
>enough imesho for me to stick in a word or three edgewise.
>Here's the way I feel about it:
>These two negator suffixes differ on a semantic level, whereon they negate
>a verb to different extents. {-be'} is a neutralizer. It nullifies a verbs
>positive semantic value. {-Ha'} on the other hand, negates a verb to the
>point of holding the status of 'antonym marker'. That positive value becomes
>automatically negative.
>To put it in different connotation:
>{-be'} = 0
>{-Ha'} = -1
>{verb} = V
>{verb+be'} = V * 0 = 0
>{verb+Ha'} = V * -1 = -V
>. . . if you really care to load your mind up with a rather pointless
>connotation. That's how I see the logic to the {-Ha'} vs {-be'} issue.
>Make of it what you will.
I don't know that I'd be quite so mathematical (or say that parHa'be' ==
parbe', though they'd be close), but your view has merit, for *part* of
"-Ha'". Recall, though, as I wrote a while ago, that "-Ha'" can be viewed
as having two meanings. One the one you mention, the "opposite" meaning,
which turns verbs around to their polar opposite (where such exists), and
the other the "failure" meaning, where it means to do something wrongly, as
in "yajaH'" (to misinterpret) or the example sentence "bIjaltlhHa'chugh"
(if you misspeak/say the wrong thing). It seems to me that the "opposite"
meaning is the more productive.
>Dap neH 'oH'a' Dochvam'e'
>'e' vItulbe'
*grin* vItulbe' or vItulHa' for "I hope not"? :-) (Actually, there could
be a case for "vItulHa'", if you take "vItulbe'" as you do above, making it
just "I don't hope so", while "vItulHa'" could mean "I *do* hope it's
false").
~mark