tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 26 11:02:51 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: adverbials with -Ha'

Sangqar asks:

>I have seen {ghaytanHa'} and {pIjHa'} on this list.  Can we add {-Ha'} to 
>any adverbial, or must we wait for it to appear in canon?

Good question, one which others have asked Marc Okrand, who responded in 
HolQeD 4.4:

   The word for "dishonorably" is {batlhHa'}. This is clearly the adverbial
   {batlh} "in an honored fashion" plus a suffix {-Ha'}, which might be
   analyzed as the negative suffix that follows verbs or else as a suffix
   identical in form (and meaning?) to it, but which appears with adverbials.
   Whether this {-Ha'} can be added to all adverbials is not clear. The notes
   taken while working with Maltz indicate that he balked at {vajHa'} ("not
   thus"?) but accepted {Do'Ha'} "unfortunately". Information on other
   adverbials has not yet been uncovered, though it is probably in the notes

peHruS later suggested *{jaSHa'} "similarly, the same way" to Okrand.  He 
reported that:

   At the 2000 qep'a' in conversation with MO, I went over the list I had 
   of adverbs + {-Ha'}. This was the very one which I was disappointed to learn
   from MO himself that it does NOT work. He never explained why. [...] 
Well, that's
   just about what I remember about {jaSHa'}. Merely that [possibly not 
   "I don't think it works." He did not volunteer any other information 
about why
   it doesn't SEEM to work or what else would work.

The list of approved examples is:

   batlhHa'    dishonorably
   Do'Ha'      unfortunately
   ghaytanHa'  unlikely, not likely
   pIjHa'      seldom, infrequently

Okrand has said that *{vajHa'} and *{jaSHa'} don't work.  As for any 
others, we just don't know.  Also, remember that some adverbials already 
have an unrelated opposite - e.g. {nom} "fast, quickly" vs. {QIt} "slowly"; 
{bong} "accidentally, by accident" vs. {chIch} "purposely, on purpose, 
intentionally" - so adding {-Ha'} to these probably won't work either.

>If we can use {-Ha'}, can we also use its fellow rover {-qu'}?  (I have 
>never seen this, but it seems a logical extension.)

An interesting idea, but this may not work.  Notice that in the HolQeD 
citation above, Okrand balked at identifying this {-Ha'} as the verb suffix 
and hinted that it may actually be a previously unidentified adverbial 
suffix "identical in form (and meaning?) to it".  See, for example, the 
unique suffix {-mo'} "due to, because of, for, since" which occurs on verbs 
and nouns.

As for intensifying the idea of the adverbial, it appears you can use the 
rover {-qu'} on the verb which the adverbial modifies.  We have two 
examples of this pattern:

   batlh maHeghbej 'ej yo' qIjDaq vavpu'ma' DImuv.  pa' reH maSuvtaHqu'
   Then we die with honor and join our fathers in the Black Fleet where we
   battle forever. (Anthem)

{pa' reH maSuvtaHqu'} = "there we keep on battling forever"

   nom yIghoSqu'!
   Maximum speed. ST5

This apparently intensifies the whole adverbial + verb phrase.  I don't 
know whether this can work with every such combination.  Cf. for example:

   tIqIpqu' 'ej nom tIqIp
   Hit them hard and hit them fast. TKW

What would {nom tIqIpqu'} mean?  "Hit them very hard and fast!"? (i.e. 
"Pummel them!  Thrash them!  Beat them up!")

BTW, adding the rover {-be'} to the verb in an adverbial + verb phrase does 
the same thing.  E.g.:

   Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe'
   Eat everything or you will die without honor. TKW
   ("If everything you do not eat, honorably you will not die")

Here {batlh bIHeghbe'} doesn't mean merely "you won't die" but that "you 
won't die honorably".

(I'll leave the question of whether "dying without honor" {batlh Heghbe'} 
is the same as "dying dishonorably" {batlhHa' Hegh} for another thread.)

Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level