tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 25 02:58:25 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Love (A-Ha!)
- From: Carleton Copeland <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Love (A-Ha!)
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:55:30 +-400
- Encoding: 38 TEXT
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