tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 17 06:52:20 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nobHa'
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: nobHa'
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:52:19 CST
I assumed:
> > 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.
>
to which SuStel replied:
> Essentially, yes. Just because English requires different phrases doesn't
> mean Klingon must. In Klingon, {nobHa'} seems to do just fine.
>
that's fine with me, I just did not look at it this way before.
> > -{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'?
>
> I don't like to see {Hev} in this context (that of paying for something) in
> general. Not because it's wrong, but because it's very passive. {HevHa'}
> just seems to be another passive word.
>
I see - at first it sounded to me as if you didn't like the -Ha' on Hev.
HomDoq