tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 02 15:47:41 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[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,

-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level