tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 25 13:21:20 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Love (A-Ha!)

At 01:35 PM 6/25/99 -0500, charghwI' wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:47:31 -0400 Carleton Copeland 
><> wrote:
>> ja' charghwI' 'utlh:
>> 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.
>> jIjang:
>> I'm aware of both meanings, as you'd know if you'd been following the 
>> discussion.  The issue is that the /-Ha'/ of /muSHa'/, /parHa'/, /QayHa'/, 
>> and /tungHa'/ seems to express a third meaning, *do the opposite of*, which 
>> I feel is not self-evident or easily derivable from the first two.
>Pardon if I'm repeating what others have said.
>{muSHa'} is not officially defined anywhere. Those who like this 
>word (and I don't) choose its meaning from the general sense 
>that {-Ha'} tends to be a stronger negative than {-be'} as is 
>evidenced by the difference between {yajbe'} and {yajHa'}. One 
>simply does not understand, while the other misunderstands. 
>Ignorance misleads one less than misinformation. 

Just to muddy the waters a bit: When {-Ha'} is used with _adverbials_,
it does seem to take on the simple meaning of "opposite".  {Do'Ha'}
and {ghaytanHa'} are the only canon examples I can think of, but
I can recall seeing {pIjHa'} and {jaSHa'} in past posts (including
some of yours, IIRC), also the adjectival {vebHa'}.  The idea of
undoing or doing wrongly certainly makes no sense with them.
They make sense only if we consider {-Ha'} to be simply inverting
the meaning.

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level