tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 03 10:59:54 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: semiotic continua

Lawrence writes:
> >Consider the following task:
> >
> >You have a continuum with <<Qap>> and <<luj>> as the end points.  
> >Where along this line, and in what order, will you lay out 
> ><<Qapbe', QapHa', QapHa'be', lujbe', lujHa'>>, and <<lujHa'be'>>? 
> >There's potential for some very subtle distinctions in meaning here 
> >(most especially because of <<-Ha'>>). 
> >
> >Just thought I'd try and stir something up for the weekend.
> 

ghunchu'wI' answers:
> I don't see the suffix {-Ha'} as always fitting neatly along a line
> between two opposites.  It often skews the meaning off the line for
> me.  Since there is a word {luj} which means the opposite of {Qap},
> I tend to think more of the "do wrongly" meaning of {-Ha'}.
> 
I don't think the absence or presence of a simple word for the opposite
of another influences the meaning of {-Ha'} on that latter word.

I always try first to read "un-verb", but "unsucceed" doesn't make too
much sense (unless you're talking about taking success away from s.o.,
so maybe it could mean "disqualify" in the right context)

next I try "mis-verb", so here it would be "mis-succeed" in the meaning
of "succeed wrongly" (as opposed to "fail in succeeding" !)
possible meaning could be "by cheating", but there are probably many
others depending on the context.

> {QapHa'} implies to me something like "malfunction".  I don't see it
I'm not sure, but "malfunction" usually means s.th. _doesn't_ work at
all, as opposed to working wrongly, so it's more like {Qapbe'} to me

well, probably it's more like "it did _something_, so it doesn't work
correctly anymore"... then I can see {QapHa'} but anyway, if the subject
is an intelligent being, {Qap} would have to be interpreted as "succeed"
and not as "work, function" qar'a'

> as quite in the spectrum between "succeed" and "fail".  {lujHa'} for
> me sounds as if someone failed at failing -- like "The Producers" in
> the Mel Brooks film of that name.
> 
hmmm.. I didn't see that film, but you cannot "fail at failing"... if
you set out to achieve a certain result (that others may mistake as
a failure of yours) and don't achieve it, you fail - otherwise you
succeed - (in achieving "apparent failure")

I cannot understand {lujHa'} without context

> So I'd put them in the order {Qap, Qapbe', lujbe', luj} with
this seems to be "obvious", but it may depend on your native language;
someone may legally claim it "should be" {Qap, lujbe', Qapbe' luj}

> {QapHa', QapHa'be', lujHa'be', lujHa'} roughly parallel to it.
as there is no obvious connection in the meanings of {QapHa'} and
{lujHa'} I wouldn't order them at all; {QapHa'be'} and {lujHa'be'}
just say, that whatever {QapHa'} or {lujHa'} means doesn't happen

Of course, this is all my opinion, which you may or may not find
logically skewed - I seem to think somewhat different... :-}

HomDoq

Back to archive top level