[94594] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Wed Sep 5 05:56:21 2012
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>, "tlhingan-hol@kli.org"
<tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:55:49 +0000
In-Reply-To: <BAY166-W536186DB6A8CBDAC1B6363AAA90@phx.gbl>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
ghItlhta' QeS 'utlh,
>> *wejHa' = "already"
>> - *wejHa' ta'lI'. = "He/she is already working on it."
>
> See, this one is really problematic. I would have thought wejHa' to mean
> "no longer, not any more", and while discussing it at the aforementioned
> breakfast ghunchu'wI' noted another potential meaning (I don't remember it,
> unfortunately) that was also logical.
Good point. Same thing probably goes for *tagha'Ha' ... and perhaps to some degree to all non-glossed adverb+Ha' constructions.
ghItlhta' De'vID,
> {DaH qama' yIHoH} "Kill the prisoner now!"
> {DaHHa'} "Not now!"
>
> (i.e., We still want to kill the prisoner, but for strategic reasons
> we should do it later; you wouldn't use {SIbI'Ha'} here because you're
> interrupting someone's command, but after things have calmed down you
> might assure the other person, {SIbI'Ha' wIHoH}.)
What I like about this example is that it stays true to the idea that -Ha' undoes something: The order was "Now!", but you've "un-now:ed" it.
> If {DaHHa'} doesn't work, how else would you say "not now"?
{SIbI'Ha'} would probably work in the situation you describe.
{'op ret} and {'op pIq} could probably also be used in a pinch, or one might use {latlh poH} as a timestamp.
In the described case, a command like {[yI]mIm}, {[yI]loS}, {yI[mev]} or simply {Qo'} seem likely candidates to me.
I think the problem with things like {ghIqHa'} is their ambiguity. For example, I would probably interpret it as "previously" or "just before then". ...though it's also possible that the meaning is deeply contextual:
It may make sense to interpret {ghIqHa'} as "previously" in a lot of contexts, but in the sentence {Ha'DIbaH HoH
tera'ngan, 'ach ghIqHa' Ha'DIbaH Sop tera'ngan.} it'd lead to some rather disturbing conclusions.
[Well, actually, maybe not that disturbing to a Klingon; they do in some cases eat their food prior to killing it.]
I figure words like ghIqHa' may in fact be fine, and possibly in use by Klingons, but we don't know how to use them. So, when one uses an adverb+Ha' that hasn't been used in canon, one needs to stop and ask oneself "Will this be understood the way I want it to be understood?".
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
