[112255] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: yItlhHa'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Mon Mar 18 13:41:09 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:41:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1552929872253.68000@kth.se>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============8151663924762877277==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------61D8A53A4DF27A95971A3F3D"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------61D8A53A4DF27A95971A3F3D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 3/18/2019 1:24 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>> The use of the suffix {-Ha'} does not imly that the situation or the
>> action was different before. It's just the opposite meaning.
> While there are some canonical examples that may suggest this to be the case (words like {jaQHa'} come to mind), the original description in TKD suggests that it requires either an undoing of a previous state/action, or that something is done wrongly:
>
> "This negative suffix implies not merely that something is not done (as does -be'), but that there is a change of state: something that was previously done is now undone. For convenience, it will here be translated as "undo", but it is closer to the English prefixes mis-, de-, dis- (as in "misunderstand", "demystify", "disentangle"). It is also used if somethign is done wrongly. Unlie -be', -Ha' can be used in imperatives."
>
> TKD also uses the example sentence Do'Ha', and comments "The use of -Ha' in this sentence suggests a turn of luck from good to bad."
I think Okrand's terminology is a bit loose here. He describes, for
example, *-Ha'* as a change of state, but that's *-choH.* I think what
he's trying to do is explain the difference between *-Ha'* and *-be'.* A
word isn't simply negated by *-Ha',* he's saying, but its sense actually
goes in the opposite direction.
So *Do'Ha'* means not necessarily that the subject had been particularly
*Do'* and was switching to *Do'Ha',* but that *Do'Ha'* is less *Do'*
than simply *Do'be'.* It's active movement in the opposite direction.
The "undoing" may be more virtual than real.
So *yItlhHa'*/be lenient, indulgent/ is more than just someone who lacks
the quality of strictness; it's someone who is actively lenient, the
very opposite idea.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------61D8A53A4DF27A95971A3F3D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/18/2019 1:24 PM, Felix Malmenbeck
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:1552929872253.68000@kth.se">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The use of the suffix {-Ha'} does not imly that the situation or the
action was different before. It's just the opposite meaning.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">While there are some canonical examples that may suggest this to be the case (words like {jaQHa'} come to mind), the original description in TKD suggests that it requires either an undoing of a previous state/action, or that something is done wrongly:
"This negative suffix implies not merely that something is not done (as does -be'), but that there is a change of state: something that was previously done is now undone. For convenience, it will here be translated as "undo", but it is closer to the English prefixes mis-, de-, dis- (as in "misunderstand", "demystify", "disentangle"). It is also used if somethign is done wrongly. Unlie -be', -Ha' can be used in imperatives."
TKD also uses the example sentence Do'Ha', and comments "The use of -Ha' in this sentence suggests a turn of luck from good to bad."</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I think Okrand's terminology is a bit loose here. He describes,
for example, <b>-Ha'</b> as a change of state, but that's <b>-choH.</b>
I think what he's trying to do is explain the difference between <b>-Ha'</b>
and <b>-be'.</b> A word isn't simply negated by <b>-Ha',</b>
he's saying, but its sense actually goes in the opposite
direction.</p>
<p>So <b>Do'Ha'</b> means not necessarily that the subject had been
particularly <b>Do'</b> and was switching to <b>Do'Ha',</b> but
that <b>Do'Ha'</b> is less <b>Do'</b> than simply <b>Do'be'.</b>
It's active movement in the opposite direction. The "undoing" may
be more virtual than real.</p>
<p>So <b>yItlhHa'</b><i> be lenient, indulgent</i> is more than
just someone who lacks the quality of strictness; it's someone who
is actively lenient, the very opposite idea.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------61D8A53A4DF27A95971A3F3D--
--===============8151663924762877277==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============8151663924762877277==--
