tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 14 22:20:09 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nobHa'
HomDoq wrote:
|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
You give (nob) the Ferengi money, the Ferengi gives it back (nobHa') to
you. Seems clear to me.
|-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
I'm still not sure I understand your logic. As I see it, -Ha' can be used
to describe the undoing of an *action* (i.e. the status quo ante is
restored), while you seem to be focusing on the *actors*. For example:
chomvaD Huch nob tera'ngan.
A Terran gives the bartender money.
tera'nganvaD Huch'e' nobHa' chom.
The bartender gives his money back to the Terran.
The money is now back with the Terran where it began. (I've also marked
Huch with -'e' to make sure our attention stays on the money.) Without
using -Ha' this would be:
chomvo' Huch'e' tlhap tera'ngan.
The Terran takes his money from the bartender.
But, neither the Klingon nor the English give any hint that the bartender
returned the money willingly, that he *gave* it back. Another example:
tera'nganvo' pu'HIch tlhap chom.
The bartender takes a phaser from the Terran.
chomvo' pu'HIch'e' tlhapHa' tera'ngan.
The Terran takes his phaser back from the bartender.
The Terran again has his phaser. Without -Ha':
tera'nganvaD pu'HIch'e' nob chom.
The bartender gives the Terran back his phaser.
This time I translated {-'e' nob} as "give it back" to show it was the same
phaser as before. I also used "back" again just to illustrate that we
should be translating the entire *idea* (using whatever words are needed to
get the idea across) and not just fixating on a specific word or suffix.
Or am I still not getting your point?
|-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?
Actually, I don't think there really is a difference. I found nge' after I
had postulated *yaHmoH and I just wanted to point that out. Since, in this
case, we are given the separate word nge', I don't think we should use
*yaHmoH at all. Most of the time, however, we're not given an explicit
transitive alternative.
Hmmm... though now I'm wondering if nge' "take away" isn't a stronger
version of tlhap "take"? Unfortunately, nge' has never been used in canon
so we can't really be sure.
-- Voragh