tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 28 13:56:42 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: adverbials with -Ha'
lab Voragh:
>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.
but why not:
nomHa' = QIt
QitHa' = nom
is it wrong to have different ways to express the same idea?
if yes, maybe it's wrong to say *{vaSHa'} because there is a word to
express the idea of "un-differently", which MO did not already
reveal. what do you think?
also esperanto speakers often refer to the canons of the inventor.
seemingly no one wants to criticize him, but he himself said that
esperanto is the language of the esperanto speakers (as far as i
know). did MO say something similar to this? or is it solely you
decision to follow MO's canons? but what if he's wrong?
stephan,
sts.