tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 15 07:05:32 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "still" (according to HolQeD 4:4)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "still" (according to HolQeD 4:4)
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 10:05:27 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Jeremy Cowan" at Jan 11, 96 06:00:26 pm
According to Jeremy Cowan:
>
> On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Alan Anderson wrote:
> > {wej} means "not yet", so it seems to me that {wejHa'} would mean
> > "yet", or "still".
>
> I don't know that Okrand is giving us permission to create new adverbs,
> but I like this a lot. It makes sense to me. Except that I wouldn't
> translate this as "yet,still", but as "yet,already".
>
> janSIy
This is precisely why I don't like it at all. Two people, two
interpretations. batlhHa' and Do'Ha' are relatively obvious and
I doubt different people would interpret them differently. For
me, THIS would be the test as to whether or not a particular
adverb can be served with {-Ha'}.
A quick look at TKD 5.4 yields:
batlhHa' - dishonorably, without honor. No question. It is a
given example and it is clear.
bongHa' is unnecessary because of chIch. It offers no new
meaning.
NOT *chaqHa'. Perhaps I will go or perhaps not. chaq jIghoS
pagh chaq jIghoSbe'.
chIchHa' is unnecessary because of bong. No new meaning.
NOT *DaHHa'. Would it be the same as {wej}? Would it refer to
the past?
Do'Ha' - Unfortunately. Again, it is a given example and it is
clear.
loQHa' is unnecessary because of {-qu'}.
nomHa' is unnessary because of QIt.
notHa' is perhaps a little controversial. Does it mean
"eventually" or "constantly" - how opposite is the -Ha'? Does
it mean the same as {tugh}?
pay'Ha' is worthy of discussion, but not clear. Would it mean
"haltingly"? "slowly"? "with a slow onset?" "with plenty of
warning"?
pIjHa' - rarely. Like the given examples, it offers a new
adverbial meaning for which we have no equivalent. We have the
verb {qub}, but extracting an adverbial meaning from it would
require an awkward construction better handled by pIjHa'.
QItHa' is unnecessary because of nom.
reHHa' is controversial ("inconsistently"? "discontinuously"?
"For a limited time only"?)
rutHa' is unnecessary because of {not}
tughHa' - not soon, in the distant future. Of course, this is
ambiguous, since it could be "never", but the future is kinda
like that. Nothing is certain in the Undiscovered Country.
NOT vajHa'. It is the counterexample and for me, it is like
{chaqHa'}. Any negation would go with the verb, not the
adverbial.
wejHa' is controversial because it is ambiguous. "Yet"?
"Still?" "Already"? "Been there, done that, bought the Tshirt?"
"never"?
So, we don't really get all that many new words. The words we
get are useful, but few. I am able to contain my excitement.
And I, too, am not thirsty.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |