tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 12 08:29:54 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "still" (according to HolQeD 4:4)
>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:33:18 -0800
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>With the newly published information about the apparent adverbial
>suffix {-Ha'}, we have a powerful tool. Like all powerful tools,
>it is capable of both great good and great harm. I would like to
>offer a thought for discussion in hopes of avoiding serious harm.
>{wej} means "not yet", so it seems to me that {wejHa'} would mean
>"yet", or "still". Exactly. Literally. This might not actually
>be a Good Thing, because the availability of literal translations
>reduces the amount of thought one needs to put into deciding what
>the meaning behind the words really is. But this newly available
>(apparent) adverb will probably be useful.
I had to quote all of that because of the cool way you managed to get both
paragraphs perfectly justified without mucking with the spacing at all (two
spaces after a period is normal).
I got my HolQeD yesterday, and while I don't really approve of discussing
it before people have it in hand, I need to answer this.
What do you mean, extending "-Ha'" to adverbials like that?? Okrand, in
his very own words, says:
"Whether this -Ha' can be added to all adverbials is not clear. The notes
taken while working with Maltz indicate that he balked at <vajHa'> ("not
thus?") but accepted <Do'Ha'> "infortunately." Information on other
adverbials has not yet been uncovered, though it is probably in the notes
somewhere."
That sounds to me like a pretty strong caution that you don't go blithely
adding "-Ha'" to adverbials just because we've heard it can happen in two
cases or so. We know it *can't* happen sometimes too. He just *said* not
to extend it, so don't.
Personally, I don't much like "*wejHa'" either. It doesn't seem to make
sense.
~mark