tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 26 11:02:51 2002
[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
somewhere.
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
prepared
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
verbatim]:
"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.)
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons