tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 18 17:33:29 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ha' on adverbs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 10:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "Marc Paige"<[email protected]>
>
>I have noticed recently that some people have been puting <Ha'> on adverbs.
>Is this legal? I cannot find any thing in TKD about this. The mose recent
>was <pIjHa'>. I am guessing that this is an attempt at "not very often" or
>"occassionally".
Okrand has given us a few examples of -Ha' on adverbials, but has
explicitly said that it can't always be done. I think {ghaytanHa'} and
{batlhHa'} are canonically OK (but I'm not sure); I sort of like {pIjHa'}
(but is it better than {rut}?), and really like {jaSHa'} (but I'm sure it's
not canon). Hmm.... Looking at other adverbials. {?nItebHa'} *could* be
OK, possibly {?pe'vIlHa'}... {?SIbI'Ha'} sounds strained, no need for
{*bongHa'} or {*chIchHa'} with {chIch} and {bong} on the job... {*chaqHa'}
makes no sense, nor {*DaHHa'}. {Do'Ha'} may even be canon, {*nomHa'},
{*QItHa'}, {*reHHa'}, {*pay'Ha'}, {*vajHa'}, {*wejHa'} all sound horrible.
{?tughHa'}? Maybe. {?rutHa'}? Nah...
Just my first impressions.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM3+f08ppGeTJXWZ9AQHbDQL9EHWma8D1++/8CLGMiR7X6u9qsUFD+NIQ
M9XmXTue4ILUkhQ+qlA2GqTAsAdhXEAE/MsRhTwt5PXqpD54vBXj8wUdDJV/5ysY
J01sl5tI1/8I4tYDfhJOcNMCFfijVfhy
=Wtc4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----