tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 01 10:44:42 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: adverbials with -Ha'

>nuQum stephan:
>>>[Voragh] wrote:
>>>>  Also, remember that some adverbials already
>>>>  have an unrelated opposite - e.g. {nom} "fast, quickly" vs. 
>>>>{QIt} "slowly";
>>>I should point out that *nomHa' might still be valid -- "not quickly" is
>>>not necessarily the same as "slowly".  It might mean something between
>>>the opposite cases, which gives some control over specificness.
>>but {Ha'} means the opposite, not simply 'not', doesn't it?
>{-Ha]} can also mean to undo something or even to do something wrongly:

hm. like in german. "un-" is the prefix for "the opposite", but 
sometimes also for "wrongly", "ugly", "bad".

"Unwetter" - bad weather
"Unmensch" - bad man / bad human being

"wichtig" - important
"unwichtig" - unimportant

right at the moment it seems to me that in german there is no 
standard prefix to say "undo". for example this very elegant "i undo 
something" in german is "ich mache etwas _un_geschehen" (i make 
something unhappened), because "geschehen" (happened) as an adjective 
is un-able, but not "make".

ok. so "Ha'" means "to undo (verb)", "the opposite of (adjective)", 
"to wrongly (verb)", "a bad (noun)", and sometimes 
"oppositely/wrongly (adverb)" right?

the rest, i think, i understood.

>>lab DloraH:
>>>Another twist, does /batlh bIHeghbe'/ mean "You will not die honorably"
>>>  - as in:  You will die, but it will be dishonorably.
>>>  - or as:  You will continue to live honorably.
>>i'd say, it means: "you will continue to live honorably". ok, so 
>>how say the first one?
>Well, you can stress the adverbial when speaking, as well as use a 
>suitable intonation (e.g. say it with a sneer):  {*batlhHa'* 
>bIHegh}.  In writing, you can mark it with asterisks or the like, as 
>I've done, or add {-bej}:  {batlhHa' bIHeghbej} "you will definitely 
>die dishonorably".  If you want to be absolutely crystal clear, you 
>need to expand them a bit:
>   bIHegh, 'ach batlhHa' bIHegh.
>   You will die, but you will die dishonorably.
>   batlh bIyIntaH.
>   You will continue to live honorably.

(batlh bIHegh)be' = your death won't be honorably
batlh (bIHegh)be' = you won't die, honorably

anyway... what about:

batlh'e' bIHeghbe' = you won't die _in honor_, so if you die, it 
won't be honorably.

batlh bIHeghbe' = honorably, you won't die, so you continue to live honorably.

>>apriori with '*':  *{batlhbe' bIHegh}
>>my mistake will be that "be'" doesn't work with adverbs, right?
>Correct.  But that was the question that started this thread.

it was a question similar do the twist of DloraH, which i already erased.

>Other than {-Ha'} - which Okrand says doesn't work with all 
>adverbials - we don't know how to modify or fine tune an adverbial. 
>As I've mentioned earlier, I think that the way to do it is not to 
>look at the adverbial in isolation, but as part of an adverbial + 
>verb phrase.  There are relatively few Klingon adverbials, but the 
>languages makes up for it with an intricate series of adverb-type 
>verb suffixes.
>This is, of course, something we need to ask Maltz about.

if Maltz knows... who is Maltz, by the way?

Huj DochvaD jangbe' MO 'e' vuDwIj'e'. (it's my opinion that it's 
strange that MO didn't give an answer for this.)


Back to archive top level