tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 02 15:47:41 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: adverb suffixes???
ja' charghwI':
>Thinking more on this, I can see some possibilities for
>expansion of the list of adverbials that can take {-Ha'} BECAUSE
>they already have opposites:
>
>tughHa' - far into the future.
>qenHa' - far into the past.
Daj. vIlajQo', 'ach Daj.
>Since the past-related potential meanings of {tughHa'} can be
>covered by {qen}, that leaves the "future, but not soon" meaning
>for {tughHa'}. Similar logic explains {qenHa'}.
I was about to disagree and present a contrary interpretation, but
two things stopped me. First, I'd rather not start debating about
something so entirely speculative. Second, and more importantly, I
suddenly noticed I had read your argument entirely backwards and the
"contrary interpretation" I was about to present is actually exactly
the same interpretation you just gave. :-)
wej vIlaj, 'ach DaH vIlajQo'be'.
>I could also see a strange use of {pa'Ha'}, as in:
Even before reading further, my brain immediately clicked on {pa'Ha'}
as meaning "somewhere else, anywhere else".
>1: Qanqor wISamlaHbe'. Dat wInejpu'!
> [We can't find Krankor. We've looked for him everywhere!]
>
>2: tachDaq bonej'a'?
> [Did you look for him in the bar?]
>
>1: toH! pa'Ha' wInejpu'!
> [Argh! We've looked for him everywhere else!]
Unfortunately, {pa'} isn't an adverb -- it's a noun, albeit one with
a strong locative meaning which makes it act much like an adverb. A
"negation" noun suffix would have been an interesting thing to have,
though.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh