tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 11 10:49:51 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

{-qa'} (was Re: DI'vI' Hol)

qon SuStel:
>Could you point out some of TKD's "do again" examples?    I'm afraid I can't
>think of any.  If I could see them, it might set my mind to rest.

Do'Ha' mutlhejbe'taH mu'ghomwIj 'ach vIqawchu' 'e' vInID.

Look at the explanation of {-qa'} in section 4.2.3, where {vInejqa'}
comes out "I am resuming the search, I am searching for him/her again"
(an example I pointed out earlier).  See also the affix lists in the 
back of the dictionary; the English-ordered verb suffixes include both
"do again" and "resume", and the Klingon-ordered verb suffix give both
meanings for {-qa'}.

The only place "do again" is omitted is in the one-word gloss given 
when the suffix is introduced.

I just noticed, however, that I can't think of anywhere that {-qa'} is
translated as "repeat".  I've always tried to interpret what TKD says
as restrictively as possible, using what seems to be the *common* 
meaning when several words or phrases are used to define a Klingon 
word or suffix.  This philosophy does tend to limit {-qa'} exclusively
to the "resume" meaning, with no obvious way to express repetition 
other than the {-logh} number suffix.

** WARNING ** SPECULATION ALERT **
Maybe it's time to pull out an idiom here.  Worf mentioned the concept
of {*nIb'poH}, similar to deja vu.  Viewing this "word" using my handy
Paramount filter, I see {nIb poH} "the period of time is identical." 
I can very nearly justify to myself the use of {nIb} to carry the kind
of "repeat" meaning we are discussing.  I'm not trying to imply that I
think the word {nIb} can be dropped in automatically for "repeat", but
I can think of a few examples where a sentence using the word "repeat"
can be recast to use the phrase "be identical".  A wallpaper pattern 
repeats; its pattern in one place is identical to that in another.  A 
song can repeat a musical phrase; the sequence of notes is identical.
"Repeat what I just said" might be {mu'meywIj nIb yIjatlh}.

>However, I don't say that {-qa'} implies a change of state by analogy with
>{-choH}; TKD itself says that!  4.2.3, Type 3: Change.  "Suffixes of this
>type indicate that the action described by the verb involves a change of some
>kind from the state of affairs that existed before the action took place."

HIvqa' veqlargh.  TKD indeed makes this pronouncement.

If we *have* been misusing the verb suffix {-qa'}, we've been doing it
for a very long time.  I suspect it might be extremely difficult to
change the communal habit of rendering "Say again?" as {yIja'qa'}.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level