tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 15 05:45:38 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
"still" (according to HolQeD 4:4)
- From: [email protected] (Bill Willmerdinger)
- Subject: "still" (according to HolQeD 4:4)
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 08:06:31
uu> From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <ur-valhalla!cs.columbia.edu!shoulson>
uu> Subject: "still" (according to HolQeD 4:4)
uu> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
uu> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 08:30:46 -0800
uu> That sounds to me like a pretty strong caution that you don't go
uu> blithely adding "-Ha'" to adverbials just because we've heard it can
uu> happen in two cases or so. We know it *can't* happen sometimes too.
uu> He just *said* not to extend it, so don't.
I had gone ahead and done just that, but after I read ~mark's message, I
went back and re-read what I had written. I'm going to include parts of
it here, because I found something very interesting.
First off, we have the following adverbials for which we are already
given opposites in TKD:
bong (accidentally) / chIch (purposely)
QIt (slowly) / nom (quickly) / pay' (suddenly)
DaH (now) / SIbI' (immediately) / tugh (soon) / wej (not yet) / not (never)
reH (always) / pIj (often) / rut (sometimes) / not (never)
HolQeD 4.4 gives us {batlh / batlhHa'} and {Do' / Do'Ha'} as acceptable
instances of using {-Ha'} on a verb, and {*vajHa'} as unacceptable (but
I have to admit that {*vajHa'} doesn't make much sense to me either.)
{jay'} and {neH} also don't make much sense with {-Ha'} on them, given
their special usages.
uu> Personally, I don't much like "*wejHa'" either. It doesn't seem to
uu> make sense.
Note that {wej} already has a place in, for lack of a better term, an
adverbial hierarchy. It's not *quite* the opposite of one of the other
adverbials in that grouping, but putting {-Ha'} on it doesn't give us
anything significantly different from what already exists.
Let's try some others.
chaq (perhaps): chaqHa' (perhaps not)
This doesn't work for me for the same reason that {*vajHa'} doesn't work.
loQ (slightly , a little bit): *loQHa' (very, a lot)
ghaytan (likely): *ghaytanHa' (unlikely)
jaS (differently): *jaSHa' (similarly)
nIteb (alone): *nItebHa' (en masse)
pe'vIl (forcefully): *pe'vIlHa' (wishy-washilly)
This is a weak one, I admit, but it *does* work.
motlh (usually): *motlhHa' (unusually, or perhaps seldom)
I would have no problem determining the meaning of {*loQHa'},
{*ghaytanHa'}, {*jaSHa'}, {nItabHa'}, {*pe'vIlHa'} or {*motlhHa'}, given
the existance of {batlhHa'} and {Do'Ha'}.
However, in the case of {ghaytan} at least, the {-Ha'} form is really
innecessary. {*ghaytanHa' maQap}: "It is unlikely we will succeed."
But we can accomplish the same thing *without* using {*ghaytanHa'}:
{ghaytan maQapbe'}. "It is likely we will not succeed."
Unfortunately, the other five adverbial+{-Ha'} forms seem to me to be
different enough that this workaround doesn't work. In any case, from
a start list of 25 adverbials, we can eliminate 13 as not needing {-Ha'},
two as already accepted, one as already rejected, and three ({neH},
{chaq} and {jay'}) as not making sense with {-Ha'}. That leaves only
six others to consider adding {Ha'} to, one of which, {ghaytan}, really
doesn't need it.
These six words would be nice to have, but not essential (after all, we
did without them *this* long).
Comments?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| la'Hom Qob vestai-qutvaj, yaS cha'DIch qumpIn je, tlh.w.D. quttaj |
| jogh boQDu''a', *North jogh, maS Hurgh yo', Qojbogh tlhIngan ghom |
| tlhIngan Hol yejHaD ghojwI' |
| [email protected] |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
... qoH SoHmo' 'ej bISuvvIpmo' DuHoHjaj *James Kirk*!