tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 14 16:19:42 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nobHa'

O.K. I'll try to answer a couple of responses in one post...

1) in response to Voragh:

-:is this canon? I understand {nobHa'} in a way that the _Subject_ is
-:taking back what the (Ind) _Object_ had been given before (not necessarily
-:by Subject though)
-
-nobHa' "give back" *is* used in the sense of "refund" in TKW:
-   Huch nobHa'bogh verenganpu''e' yIvoqQo' 
-   Don't trust Ferengi who give back money.
-
o.k. this doesn't make me happy, but... what can you do :(

-:{nob} gives - {nobHa'} takes back
-
-Wouldn't tlhapHa' be more appropriate for "take back"?
-
not according to the logic I used above. that would give you
something more like "put back", but canon forces me to change 
my approach, which I will do further down, in response to SuStel

-:              {yaHmoH} takes away - {yaHHa'moH} gives back
-:
-
-yaH is glossed "be taken away" and I've always envisioned a prisoner being
-taken away, no doubt kicking and screaming. *yaHmoH, to "take someone/thing
-away" (not to be confused with nge' "take away"), may be used as an
-alternative for "arrest", which is qop (another pun! < Engl. "cop"). 
-
o.k., I was not aware of the verb {nge'}, but could you explain to me,
what you think the difference between {yaHmoH} and {nge'} would be?

-- Voragh

2) in response to ter'eS:

->{nob} gives - {nobHa'} takes back
-
-On the other hand, I've understood that one of the meanings of {-Ha'} is to
-undo a reversable action.  Someone gives you something {nob}; if you give it
-back
-{nobHa'} you reverse the giving.
-
the point is, that I expected the subjects of the action and
the reverse action to be the same, thus the person who did the giving
in the first place, should have been the one doing the "ungiving".

-- ter'eS

3) in response to SuSvaj:

-> >{nob} gives - {nobHa'} takes back
-
-*nobHa'* is not "take back" it is "give back".  This is a canon word.  See
-the KLI homepage word list, or TKW p 189.
-
that's why I was asking whether this usage was canon, right?
however, I'm still not convinced that it can _only_ mean "give back"
and I hope you can see, where I was coming from, when I made the
above assumption...

-
-SuSvaj

4) in response to SuStel:

-Voragh has pointed out the canon, which I was actually not aware of when I 
-wrote this.  I thought the context was quite clear.  The Terran gave the 
-bartender something.  {nob} was used for that.  When the bartender "undoes" 
-that action, by giving back the money, you use {nobHa'}.
-
I did not say, that I considered it to be ambiguous...

-I don't think there's any reason to believe that {-Ha'} indicates an exact 
-reversal of events.  It indicates that an action is undone, or done 
-incorrectly.
now that means that the identities of the people involved are more or
less arbitrary, right?

so you either have that the reversal can be done by whomever, so that
{nobHa'} _can_ mean "take back" if the subject _is_ the one who did the
giving, while it means "give back" if the subject is the one who originally
was the recipient, and finally it means "bring back" if the subject was
not involved in the original transaction.

or (referring to the "either" above) you have a unique way of deciding who
must be the subject of <verb>-Ha' if you know the roles of the people
involved in <verb>

I really would like to have this {-Ha'} tracked down... :(

-{HevHa'} might work, but I don't like it.  Ugly.  Feel free to disagree.
I do (feel free :)... what is "ugly" about _Hev_Ha' as opposed to any
other <verb>-Ha'?

-- 
-SuStel
-Beginners' Grammarian
-Stardate 97122.7

sorry for all this...

HomDoq

Back to archive top level