[87258] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Usage of -Ha' (was: Checking understanding of -be')
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Doty)
Fri Nov 27 20:23:55 2009
In-Reply-To: <4B10766D.7020105@trimboli.name>
From: Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:21:45 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Aha! I missed that last sentence somehow. <-Ha'> seems much clearer
now, thanks!
Chris
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 17:01, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> Christopher Doty wrote:
>> <-Ha'> is still a bit of a mystery to me, as its
>> discussion in TKD is so brief. It looks like it rovers in the same
>> way as <-be'>, but that isn't explicitly stated, so it's not really
>> clear...
>
> {-Ha'} doesn't "rove," even though it's called a rover. It always comes
> right after the verb, before any other suffixes. It gives the verb a
> sense of either "undo" or "do wrongly."
>
> {leghbe'} means that the subject does not see something; it implies
> nothing about whether the subject was ever able to see the thing.
> {leghHa'} means that the subject "unsees" something; something was seen,
> but is now not seen. Or it could mean "see something wrongly"; the
> subject sees something, but misinterprets what it sees, or doesn't get
> the right image. Whether the correct interpretation of {-Ha'} is "undo"
> or "do wrongly" seems to depend on context.
>
> --
> SuStel
> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
> http://trimboli.name/mush
>
>
>
>
