[87974] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Already
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (MorphemeAddict)
Fri Apr 30 20:53:11 2010
In-Reply-To: <418227.41458.qm@web82605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:50:19 -0400
From: MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Is that true just for that one conversation? Or even that one? I thought
{-pu'/-ta'} had no relation to the time of the conversation or utterance
they occur in.
lay'tel SIvten
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Terrence Donnelly <
terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I have always considered the suffixes {-ta'/-pu'} to carry the idea of
> "already", as in Okrand's example, since they refer to actions completed in
> relation to the time of one's conversation.
>
> -- ter'eS
>
> --- On Fri, 4/30/10, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> > From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
> > Subject: RE: Already
> > To: "'tlhingan-hol@kli.org'" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
> > Date: Friday, April 30, 2010, 9:45 AM
> > buswI':
> > >> I recently tried to express that I did not want to
> > drink coffee since
> > >> I'd already had coffee, but found no klingon word
> > for "already". How
> > >> ever, there is {wej} for "not yet", so I thought
> > that {wejHa'} might
> > >> work. But of course, I can't put a {-Ha'} after an
> > adverb just as if
> > >> it had been a verb...
> > >>
> > >> OTOH, there are some adverbs that are similarly
> > formed, such as
> > >> {DoHa'} (unfortunately) and the pair {pIj}
> > (frequently) and {pIjHa'}
> > >> (infrequently).
> >
> > HQ 4.4: Whether this {-Ha'} can be added to all
> > adverbials is not clear. The notes taken while working with
> > Maltz indicate that he balked at {vajHa'} ("not thus?") but
> > accepted {Do'Ha'} "unfortunately". Information on other
> > adverbials has not yet been uncovered, though it is probably
> > in the notes somewhere.
> >
> >
> > >> So would {wejHa'} (or {wejbe'}) count as an
> > acceptable neologism? It's
> >
> > It might, but you can't be sure how it would be
> > understood. In my notes I discovered that someone has
> > already (!) suggested *{wejHa'} for "yet, ever".
> > E.g.:
> >
> > ? wejHa' qa'vIn Datlhuth'a'
> > Do you ever drink coffee?
> >
> > ? wejHa' qa'vIn Datlhuthpu''a'
> > Have you ever drank coffee?
> >
> >
> > >> the kind of construction that might occur as
> > slang, for instance.
> > >>
> > >> {wejHa' qavIn vItlhutlhpu'} "I've already
> > had coffee"
> > >>
> > >> Or is it a deeper reason to the lack of the word?
> > It is a bit
> > >> superflous, perhaps {qavIn vitlhutlhpu'} would be
> > more direct, and
> > >> thus more Klingon? Or, for that matter, {qen qavIn
> > vItlhutlhpu'} (I
> > >> have recently had coffee) would be more precise?
> >
> > We have one example of Okrand translating "already":
> >
> > bIHeghvIpchugh bIHeghpu'.
> > If you are afraid to die, you have already died.
> > (TKW)
> >
> > Since the lack of a word for "already" didn't bother
> > Okrand, I would just say:
> >
> > qa'vIn vItlhutlhpu'. latlh vIneHbe'.
> > I have [already] drank coffee. I don't want
> > another (one).
> >
> >
> > On the other hand, I do. Time for my coffee break!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Voragh
> >
> > Canon Master of the Klingons
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
