tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 01 20:13:28 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: be' & Ha', KLBC
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: be' & Ha', KLBC
- Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 22:14:21 -0500
tIm writes:
>...If <-Ha'> means undo then
><HoHHa'> is something like "unkill" which I interpret as meaning, in English,
>resurrect or reanimate. The picture I have is something like a doctor
>defibbing a patient. If <-Ha'> is just a negation then I see little
>difference between it and <-be'>. So I come you KLBC and ask, "What gives?"
Lawrence answered well (and quickly), but I decided to chip in anyway.
TKD section 4.3 gives two interpretations for {-Ha'}. One is the "undo"
meaning you are considering. But {-Ha'} "...is also used if something
is done wrongly." The example given is {bIjatlhHa'chugh} "if you say the
wrong thing" or "if you misspeak". While {-be'} is simple negation, the
absence of the action, {-Ha'} is active. Either the opposite of the
action or a corruption of the action occurs. Actually, I think that the
"undo" or "opposite" meaning can probably be viewed simply as a special
case of the "corruption" idea.
{ghItlhHa'} is usually translated "mis-write", not "un-write" or "erase".
It's how many of us express the idea "make a typographical error".
>Sov 'e' bajnISlu'
I don't recognize {baj}, but this is a poorly formed sentence in any case.
TKD 6.2.5 says in cases like this when the subject of the second verb is
"one" or "someone", {net} is used instead of {'e'}. As an example, we see
{qama'pu' DIHoH net Sov} "One knows we kill prisoners." Note that {-lu'}
is *not* used here.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj