tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 15 05:45:41 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Negated adverbials
- From: [email protected] (Bill Willmerdinger)
- Subject: Negated adverbials
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 08:06:39
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)
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.
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'}.
Opinions?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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] |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
... reH tlhIngan Hol yejHaD taHjaj