tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 25 07:51:25 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Love (A-Ha!)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Love (A-Ha!)
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:51:18 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
I might suggest that while this all seems like a revellation to
you, you might try reading TKD, page 47 (4.3 Rovers). Okrand
explicitly explains that {-Ha'} has two meanings. One is to
"undo". The other is "do wrongly". TKD really is worth reading.
charghwI' 'utlh
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 06:04:19 -0400 Carleton Copeland
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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