tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 13 14:05:45 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC the effects of -Ha'

Quoting Quvar valer <>:
> ghItlh "Sebastian DuMars" <>:
> >nep=lie                  nepHa'= another expression for 'be true' or 'to
> > tell the truth"

> I don't think so, because there is a word for "tell the truth": {vIt}
> I'm not sure, but I'd say that here, the "wrongly"-meaning can also be
> applied, describing a bad liar.

Actually, given the whole "opposite" idea, perhaps it's something more
like "recant", or "tell the truth (but only after lying initially)",
that sort of thing.  For instance, it might be used to describe a witness
or defendent in court who changes their story to tell the truth, finally.

> >ghaj=have            ghajHa'=lose?
> Here, we also have a word for "lose, misplace" {chIl}:
>    {tlhonchaj chIljaj}
>    "may they lose their nostrils"

Perhaps, again going with "opposite", this could be something like "donate"
or ...  can't think of the word, but when one "gives up their worldly
possessions".  Or possibly "surrender" (sort of the opposite side of
"confiscate"), like if you surrender a weapon.

> >legh=see              leghHa'=??????
> This could mean, "not see perfectly". Maybe when you see something, you
> believe it's a man, but in fact, it's a woman. 
> The you really did "mis-see".

"Opposite" possibility is "blind".

> I am not sure about all these words, so I'm looking forward to comments from
> people who like giving comments ;-)

Hopefully my comments aren't sounding like I'm jumping in the "opposite"
boat over the "wrongly" boat...  I don't have any particular opinion on
these.  I might think that there may be semantic(?) reasons that some verbs
wouldn't take <-Ha'> anyway, so maybe <leghHa'> wouldn't be a Klingon word

Russ Perry Jr
No .sig today.

This mail sent through IMP:

Back to archive top level