Re: Love (A-Ha!)

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@cms.mail.virginia.edu>]

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 
<copeland@eycis.com> 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