tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 19 05:04:20 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
}} Q: -Ha' (was Re: 'Smoking' etc.)
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: }} Q: -Ha' (was Re: 'Smoking' etc.)
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 9:04:20 METDST
ghItlh peHruS:
>
> I see a difference between the Verb Suffix Rovers <-be'> and <-Ha'>. To me,
> <-be'> "not having the quality/action of the verb." <-Ha'> means "having a
> misdirected quality/action of the verb."
>
> Therefore, I do not think we can loosely interchange Verb+be' and Verb+Ha'.
> I find them to mean different things. I welcome more discussion on this
> perceived difference.
>
I'd like to slip in a question here:
when I joined this list about a year ago, I've been
told, -Ha' simply means "opposite action/state",
although Okrand consistently describes it as either
doing s.th. wrongly (mis-) or as involving a change.
("there is a change of state", "undo", "de-", "dis-",
"turn of luck"). I've been told then, that this is
not how it was meant (and examples from the appendix
support this). However, if this is so, what - if any
at all - is the difference between, e.g.,
DaSmey Say' and DaSmey lamHa' ?
If all I had on -Ha' was 4.3. I'd translate them as
clean boots cleaned boots
(boots that [are] turn[ed] undirty)
(I'm not sure what aspect -Ha' should imply with this usage...)
On a related issue, charghwI' recently used yuvHa'
to mean "pull". To me, it sounds like "push wrongly"
because in order to "unpush" s.th. you might as well
be pushing it back from the opposite side.
My worries are, that most people probably only have TKD
(not the grammarians on this list) to refer to, if they
are to translate s.th. and the description of -Ha' seems
quite unambiguous to me.
bIjangchugh bIjangmo' qathlo'
Marc "Dochlangan"
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------