Re: adverb suffixes???

["Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>]

>From: "William H. Martin" <whm2m@virginia.edu>
>Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:32:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>
>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.

Woops, didn't see this when I posted my last letter.

We didn't know there was a {qen} before we had it, so {tughHa'} then could
have meant either {qen} OR "far in the future"... or for the matter be
synonymous with {DaH}, negating the "at another time" aspect of
{tugh}... or more likely, mean nothing meaningful at all.  As it still
might.

>I could also see a strange use of {pa'Ha'}, as in:
>
>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!]

That'd be... strange.

Now, I'm not saying this is right: it probably isn't, and you probably
think it isn't too.  Doesn't mean it's a bad thing to say.  People often
use dodgy nonce grammar and words in colloquial conversation, and it gets
the point across.  You wouldn't write it in a book, and you wouldn't say it
to your sixth-grade grammar teacher, but you would say it to a friend, who
would likely grin at your creative play on words.  Like the time at a
qep'a', when I asked "why?" about something and you turned to me and said
"mo'!"  (i.e. "just because!")

~mark