tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 17 19:06:40 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
-Ha' vs. -be'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: -Ha' vs. -be'
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 97 00:43:42 UT
jatlh charghwI':
> Yes, the different meanings of {-Ha'} can be confusing. In this
> case, I would tend toward a slightly different interpretation,
> though this is where all the confusion comes in. SuStel would
> expect {lI'Ha'} to imply that something had been usefull and
> then became useless.
Let me amend my previous statemtent a bit by saying that {-Ha'} doesn't imply
that the thing WAS useful at some point. (It might have been, but that's not
what {-Ha'} is telling us.) However, the thing's usefulness has been undone.
I don't know . . . think of it like a "virtual state," a state of usefulness
which never really existed, but which is being compared to what exists now.
> Instead, I'd favor the {yajHa'} use of {-Ha'} and consider that
> {lI'be'} means something was useless in a benign, perhaps
> irritating, but not really important way. Useless and annoying.
I certainly agree that {-Ha'} has quite a broad range of possibilities, but
I'm not sure I see {-be'} as meaning something minor. I think {-be'} is
straight negation, pure and simple. It says nothing about the severity of the
negation. {-be'} means [not something], and {-Ha'} means [something else].
> Meanwhile, I would expect {lI'Ha'} to be more destructively
> useless. It is not just useless. It is harmful. A disrupter
> that will not fire is {lI'be'}. A disruptor that explodes in my
> hand is {lI'Ha'}. A cloaking device that does not cloak is
> {lI'be'}. A cloaking device that emits a signal easily
> pinpointed with long range sensors is {lI'Ha'}.
Let me show you how I'd interpret these. All of these statements are true:
lI'be' bachbe'bogh nISwI'
lI'Ha' jorbogh nISwI'
lI'be' jorbogh nISwI'
The difference between the second and third sentences is that while the second
compares the harmfulness of the disruptor to that "virtual state" of
usefulness (which it never actually was), the third simply says that an
exploding disruptor does not have a use for us. I don't think I would say
{lI'Ha' bachbe'bogh nISwI'}.
Let us consider the example of {par}. {parHa'} is what is listed as
"dislike." How does this differ from {parbe'}? {parbe'} simply says that you
don't like something. It doesn't matter how you DO feel about it, you just
don't happen to like it. {parHa'} says that you actively dislike something.
It describes how you DO feel about it. (This is my idea as to why {-Ha'}
always follows the verb: it's forming an antithesis verb, which is to be
treated as a new verb grammatically.) You don't have to have liked whatever
it is before, but you can imagine a "virtual state" of liking which you are
comparing your feelings to, and saying that it is the "undoing" of.
> Tribbles are borderline... Okrand was charitable to interpret
> ten of them as {lI'be'}.
Spock was thinking {lI'be' yIHmey}. Klingons and High Commissioners tend to
think {lI'Ha' yIHmey}.
> > Unfortunately, we don't have a ready word for "explosion." {jorwI'} means
> > "explosive," not "explosion." You might say this: {jorbogh Duj} "the ship
> > which explodes." One *might* consider the word {jortaHghach}. It does
> > seem
> > to mean "explosion."
>
> Or perhaps {jorchoHghach} or {chorDI'ghach}.
I like {jorchoHghach}, but you cannot use {jorDI'ghach} (you didn't mean
"belly," right?). That's two Type 9 suffixes.
> Most explosions
> don't really last all that long. [...]
>
> I'd expect {jortaHghach} to refer to the physical phenominae
> inside a star. I think that {-taH} is perhaps grabbed a little
> too quickly for the service of {-ghach} and it doesn't always
> fit all that well. And perhaps the destructive aftermath of an
> explosion would be {jorpu'ghach} and the intentional crater of
> a direct hit would be {jorta'ghach}.
The context we were working on here was Sulu saying "Target that explosion and
fire." Now, as you watch the Bird of Prey start to flame and fall apart,
things are still exploding. There is still force going from the ship to the
area outside. This explosion was longer than instantaneous, which is why I
was forced to consider {-taH}. I agree, {-taH} is overused with {-ghach}, but
that's because a lot of things people try to use {-ghach} for *are* continuous
actions. When I see {-taH} and {-ghach} together, I will think of it
literally, and if it doesn't make sense as a continuous process, then I'll
know the person was just looking for any suffix to throw in there.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97462.1