tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 20 14:40:04 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: easy sentences
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: easy sentences
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 17:39:59 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Marc Ruehlaender" at Jan 20, 95 8:19 am
According to Marc Ruehlaender:
>
...
> TKD p. 47: "This negative suffix implies not merely that
> something is not done (as does -be'), but that there is
> a change of state:..."
>
> TKD p. 48: "Do'Ha' it is unfortunate... The use of -Ha'
> in this sentence suggests a turn of luck from good to bad."
>
> Have I misunderstood these passages?
It is not so much that you have misunderstood them as it is
that you have attached too much importance to an aspect of
Okrand's word choice which was probably unintentional. The
difference between {-Ha'} and {-be'} is somewhat slippery and
difficult to explain. While trying to do so, Okrand used the
words "change" and "turn", but the MAIN suffix to use to
indicate "change" is {-choH}.
As best that I can understand it, {-Ha'} generally indicates an
assertive negative where {-be'} can be a passive negative. The
best single example I can think of is the difference between
qayajbe' and qayajHa'. The first means, "I don't understand
you." The second means, "I misunderstand you." See?
The same is true between jIDo'be' and jIDo'Ha'. The first
means, "I am not lucky." The second means, "I am unlucky." The
first is true if I lose a few credits at cards. The second is
true if I lose my house, my ship and my first born son playing
cards. There is a qualitative difference between {-be'} and
{-Ha'}, but the sense of CHANGE is merely one possible form of
it. Meanwhile, when you really want to express the sense of
"change", you need {choH}.
> > it's needed, since Klingon *DOES* express changes of status
> > explicitly... but not with -Ha'. That's what -choH is for. Read it again.
>
> I know of -choH, I just thought -Ha' combines the meanings
> of -choH and -be'
Not really. It can, but that is incidental to the main thrust
of {-Ha'} which is to actively reverse the action of the root
verb.
> > So QaHchoHlaHbe' is probably the closest to what you want... yes, I know it
> > doesn't seem obvious from the ordering of teh suffixes, but there's no
> > alternative. -choH has to precede -laH, and -be' only makes sense after
> > -laH.
>
> Do you imply that I shouldn't even have used -pu'?
If you want to express that the wind HAD changed to be unable
to help, then {-pu'} is fine. If you merely meant that the wind
CHANGED to be unable to help, then you don't want {-pu'}.
> I'd understand QaHchoHlaHbe' (or QaHHa'laH) as
> becoming unhelpful, or better said, either this OR
> having become unhelpful, which would have to be
> disambiguated either by context or by the use of
> type 7 verb suffixes.
QaHHa'laH means it was able to be unhelpful. QaHchoHlaHbe'
means it was not able to be helpful. In your English, you
seemed to indicate the latter. QaHchoHlaHbe'pu' means it had
been unable to be helpful. QaHHa'laHpu' means it had been able
to be unhelpful. Does this help?
>
> Marc 'Doychlangan'
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
> Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |