Re: Love (A-Ha!)

[Carleton Copeland <copeland@eycis.com>]

ja' ghunchu'wI':

[The "undo" idea] doesn't have to be a change in state from what the 
non-suffixed verb says. The way I see it, you don't have to have a change 
in state from "tight" to "loose" in order for {QeyHa'} to apply. You just 
have to have something end up being loose that wasn't loose to begin with.

ja' Qov:

/-Ha'/ *can* refer to something once done being undone; /baghHa'/ would 
definitely be "untie" but it doesn't have to refer to the UNdoing of 
something that has been done.

jIjang:

The idea of *undoing* something that was never *done* in the first place is 
a curious one.  This may well be a good way to bridge the gap between the 
/-Ha'/ of /baghHa'/ and the *do the opposite of* /-Ha'/ of /parHa'/, but I 
still consider it a distinct sense that is not at all implied in the 
English word *undo*.

Interestingly, ghunchu'wI' feels that the /-Ha'/ of /parHa'/ and /tungHa'/ 
derives from the *do incorrectly* sense rather than from the *undo* sense 
of the suffix.

ja' ghunchu'wI':

{-Ha'} doesn't always imply "undo".  Sometimes it means "do incorrectly", 
and that often makes sense translated as doing the opposite.  If I 
mis-discourage someone, what I'm actually doing is encouraging him.

jIja':

/-Ha'/, as it turns out, is a very slippery character.

qa'ral