tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 23 19:51:16 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: easy sentences
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: easy sentences
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 22:51:13 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Marc Ruehlaender" at Jan 23, 95 8:25 am
According to Marc Ruehlaender:
>
> >
> > As best that I can understand it, {-Ha'} generally indicates an
> > assertive negative where {-be'} can be a passive negative.
> > [...] the main thrust
> > of {-Ha'} ... is to actively reverse the action of the root
> > verb.
> >
> Maybe that is the point: I tried to reverse the action of
> the whole verb - but then again I wouldn't want it to reverse
> type 7 suffixes as well. Hmm. So I do agree now, that
> -choHlaHbe' is correct.
Okay, how about this:
Adding {-Ha'} to a verb makes a fundamental change in the root
verb. That is why it is okay to always place it after the root.
It would make little sense to make it rove because it really
attacks the root meaning of the verb. Hence, the difference
between par and parHa', Do' and Do'Ha' or any of the other
{-Ha'} verbs. It is a bigger thing than a simple negation,
hence it sometimes means "wrongly" and sometimes "big change".
> However I still don't see your point about -Ha' not denoting
> a change from positive to negative. Of all the meanings
> Okrand gives us to approximately translate -Ha', which are
> "undo", "mis-", "de-", "dis-" and "wrongly", three denote
> a change ("undo", "de-" and "dis-"), while the other two
> denote a wrong way of acting.
That's scarcely a majority; certainly not enough to fixate
quite so much on this sense of change. The suffix {-choH} is
right there, blatently representing change. If you want change,
use {-choH}. If you want a really big, fundamentally different
root meaning of the verb, use {-Ha'}. Don't think that {-Ha'}
is exactly equal to {-be'choH}. If it were, then we would not
need {-be'choH}, or rather, since {-be'} and {-choH} are more
versatile, we would not need {-Ha'}.
...
> And another note about -pu':
> Can we agree on the following?
> QaHchoHlaHbe'pu' it has become unable to help
For the benefit of other beginners who may misread this to
confuse aspect and tense, this could also mean:
it had become unable to help
or
it will have become unable to help
It does NOT mean:
it became unable to help
> QaHchoHlaHbe'taH it is turning unable to help
Your English sounds like the Klingon should be
QaHchoHlaHbe'lI'. {-taH} has more of a sense that the change is
ongoing, while your English suggests that it is on the verge of
completing this change. {-lI'} is better at this.
> QaHchoHlaHbe' it turns unable to help
Fine. Most English speakers would probably phrase it as, "It
becomes unable to help," or "It begins to be unable to help."
> i.e. the latter two describe the change (the first
> emphasizing the progression) while the first one
> describes the result of it.
Note, in your own wording, you used "progression" rather than
"continuity". That was a hint that {-lI'} was a better choice.
Overall, I do think you are getting it.
> Qapla'
> Marc 'Doychlangan'
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
> Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |