tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 19 16:15:34 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} Q: -Ha'
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} Q: -Ha'
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 20:15:34 METDST
> > what 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)
>
> Considering that to say something is clean is very near saying
> that it is the polar opposite of dirty, I see the two
> statements as being very close to equivalent, as indeed "clean
> boots" and "cleaned boots" are both clean boots. Still, DaSmey
my point was that Okrands description suggested a
change of state with -Ha' although I'm aware that
he uses -Ha'choH
>
> Meanwhile, DaSmey lamHa' makes a specific reference to their
> state of being dirty and strongly negates it. It is not that
> they are merely not dirty. They are the opposite of dirty. In
or did they TRANSFORM into the opposite
(sorry, I just want to hold my flag a little longer)
> particular, since the original verb is stative, there is no
> process to be mismanaged. It would not be sensible to refer to
> the process of being dirty to have been imperfectly executed,
I agree
> so instead, we lean towards a more forceful kind of negative
> than a mere {lanbe'}.
>
we are NOT talking about -be' vs -Ha'
(at least I'm not)
> There is an implication that the shoes were dirty and have been
> remarkably well cleaned, but I see it more as the difference
> between the two similar English sentences:
>
> Wow! Those shoes are really CLEAN!
>
Say'qu'
> Wow! Those shoes have absolutely NO dirt on them AT ALL!
>
lambe'qu' (o.k. a bit of a stretch)
> > 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.
>
> This is one of those prepositional things. "Push" can be
> interpreted either as the sensory experience of pressing with
> the hands, or it can be more objectively seen as exerting force
whaddaya mean, more objectively?
> away from the actor. In the former sense, "push" is a
> completely unrelated action because the sensations are totally
> different. Meanwhile, in the latter sense, "pull" is simply to
> "unpush", or to apply pressure toward the actor.
>
no even then unpush would mean "take back the action of
pushing", with no hint at all wether you pull or push
from the opposite side. favourite misquote: everything
is relative!
> If you were to define the polar opposite of push, you would
> probably choose "pull" rather than "to screw up the process of
> pushing".
Indeed. However, I deny that -Ha' must be the
"polar opposite"
> Meanwhile, if you were to define the polar opposite
> of "understand" you would probably choose "misunderstand"
of course, we agree completely on the use of
-Ha' in such instances, I think
> Okay, lets look at our canon {-Ha'} and {-be'} words:
>
why -be'? we don't argue about be' do we?
> belHa' "displeased" polar opposite of bel.
>
> You can be in many states regarding pleasure, such that to be
> not pleased is not as stong a statement as to be displeased, so
> "displeased" needs a suffix to set it apart from merely not
> being pleased.
>
I should say, this also fits my literal (TKD 4.3.)
interpretation
of course to be not pleased is belbe'
> ghomHa' "scatter, disperse" polar opposite of ghom.
>
> There are many states of being grouped, so to actively ungroup
> requires a different suffix than merely not being grouped.
>
this clearly fits the reversed action def as in
engage <-> dis-engage
of course you cannot dismeet etc.
> jotHa' "be uneasy" polar opposite of jot.
>
> Again, there are many states of calmness...
>
it might as well mean "turned uneasy"
> jubbe' "be immortal" not jub.
>
this is a -be' word :(
> lobHa' "disobey" is polar opposite of lob. There are many
> degrees of obedience.
>
Hrgl!... maybe "to obey wrongly" (yes it's weak)
> naDHa' "discommend, disapprove" the CLASSIC {-Ha'} verb that
> created the {-ghach} suffix. There are many states of approval
> and this is the polar opposite.
>
I regard this a reversing the action of approval
> parHa'. Again, there are many degrees of disliking. This is the
> polar opposite.
>
welllll...
> qImHa'. There are many degrees. Polar.
>
ahh - you are writing s.th. remarkable about
degrees right below:
> QeyHa'. Note: this does not mean to screw up being tight. Note
> also that if you want this to mean to change state to be loose,
> you must use QeyHa'moH, so {-Ha'} does not necessarily imply a
> change of state. It just means polar opposite. There is a
> difference between merely being not tight and being loose. It
> is a matter of degree, which is generally the difference
> between {-be'} and {-Ha'}.
>
I know the difference between -be' and -Ha', really!
I want to know the differenc between tIn and machHa', between
Say' and lamHa' aso. no question about -be'!
> QuchHa'. Many states. Polar.
>
or a change of state? just maybe?
> tuQHa'moH. You can dress someone, not dress them or undress
> them.
>
its the reverse of "to dress", isn't it?
"unwear" seems not very sensible to me.
(which may explain the -moH here)
> yajHa'. Polar.
>
mis-
> The point is that the canon is very consistent in the
> difference between {-be'} and {-Ha'}.
it better should be! ;-)
> I think that Okrand's
> verbal description of the meaning of {-Ha'} was not nearly as
> clear as the accumulation of his examples.
>
if not they're meant as exceptions
> It is not that I like trying to rewrite Okrand's language.
I did Not mean to accuse you of such!
>
> > 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.
>
anyway, I have learned to live with the idea, that
-Ha' is the opposite (smiling innocently)
just what is the diiference between
tIn and machHa'
you say, there isn't any?
then why is -Ha' used in these instances?
Marc "Dochlangan"
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------