Re: help with "Floreat Majestas"

[willm@cstone.net]

I think all of this (nobHa'} business points to what is to me a new insight 
into one aspect of the suffix {-Ha'}. I've always thought that when you use {-
Ha'} to mean "undo", the subject is undoing the verb, when it seems it is more 
accurate that action of the verb is being undone to the direct object. The 
subject did not necessarily do the original action that is being undone, but 
the direct object is the item to which the action of the verb was previously 
done, and is now being undone.

I know I'm not being clear yet, but I don't see this as easy to start 
describing this. My original objection to {nobHa'} meaning "give back" instead 
of "take back" was based upon my faulty association of the changed verb with 
its subject. If I give the gift, then I take it back, I thought the verb for 
that second action was {nobHa'}, but it's not. The verb follows the gift, not 
the giver when one "ungives" the gift by giving it back.

One person gives {nob} the gift. The recipient gives it back {nobHa'}. 
Presumably, if the second person, instead of giving it back, gave the gift to a 
third person, the second person would {nobqa'}, since the repetition of the 
giving is associated with the gift, not the giver. This is a completely new 
idea for me. I like the way it tweaks my brain. It only hurts a little... [erk].

The giving becomes a vector for the gift. Maybe this business of having direct 
objects preceed the verb has more significance than we've been giving it. 
Perhaps the association between the direct object and the verb is more 
important in Klingon than that between the subject and the verb.

Likely, {nob} is not unique in this regard. After all, if I tie a rope 
{vIQeymoH} and you untie it, {DaQeyHa'moH}, even though you are not the one who 
tied it. If I tie it, Krankor unties it and then you retie it, {DaQeyqa'moH}, 
even though you are not repeating any action you've done before. You are, from 
your perspective, tying the rope for the first time. It's the rope that's being 
tied repeatedly. Cool idea, eh?

What then about intransitive verbs? How do {-Ha'} and {-qa'} work when there is 
no direct object? Likely, similar to the way {-lu'} works, the apparent rules 
magically change when applied to a verb with no direct object. The subject now 
becomes the one that undoes or redoes an action.

jIQamDI' jIba'Ha', ghIq jIba'qa'. There is only one noun associated with the 
action, so that noun undoes the action or redoes it.

So, what's your verdict? Does this idea fly or flounder?

Will

> qe'San wrote:
> > >>  nob    "give"
> > >>  nobHa' "ungive", "give back"
> > >>
> > > I might be missing something here so forgive me for asking but wouldn't
> > > [nobHa'],  be "take", "take back" as well as "ungive" rather than "give
> > > back"?
> 
> {nobHa'} is glossed as "give back, return" in KGT.  We have an example from 
> TKW:
> 
>    Huch nobHa'bogh verenganpu''e' yIvoqQo'
>    Don't trust Ferengi who give back money.
> 
> You give money {Huch nob} to the Ferengi, then the Ferengi gives the money 
> back {Huch nobHa'} to you.  In this context, "refund money" would be 
> another translation of {Huch nobha'}:  "Don't trust Ferengi who give refunds".
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
> 
>