Re: adverbials with -Ha'

["matlh mIStaq" <matlhmistaq@hotmail.com>]

>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.
> > {bong} "accidentally, by accident" vs. {chIch} "purposely, on purpose,
> > intentionally" - so adding {-Ha'} to these probably won't work either.
>Even here, you can have levels of emphasis with *bongHa' or *chIchHa'
>that the two extremes don't give you.

Despite being a bigginer in tlhIngan Hol, I would have to agree with this. 
We must remember that Klingons hold specificity as almost a virtue. I think 
that even if Klingon grammarians (or even MO) frouned on words such as 
*nomHa' they would still be used occasionaly by Klingons.

While some dissagree with any violation from grammar in any language, it is 
sometimes acceptible. Page 176 in TKW, "IntentionalUngrammaticality" 
obviously indicates that some deviation from "standard" grammar is 
acceptable and so for the sake of clarity I think it plausable that such 
words would be uttered and even written down (albeit rarely).

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com