[94604] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Wed Sep 5 11:09:36 2012
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:09:19 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <50475A00.3040800@gmx.de>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On 9/5/2012 9:56 AM, Klingonteacher wrote:
>
> Am 05.09.2012 15:38, schrieb David Trimboli:
>> I think {-Ha'} on adverbials only really works when the adverbial has a
>> meaning with an obvious opposite. {jaS} "differently" has an obvious
>> opposite in {jaSHa'} "in the same manner." Words like {tugh} and {DaH}
>> don't have obvious opposites, and thus are less suitable for {-Ha'}.
>
> Hm, interesting. tugh and DaH are both time adverbs. I regarded the use
> of -Ha' here in the sense of "un-" which must not always mean the opposite.
For verbs, no, but we have no rules regarding the meaning of {-Ha'} on
adverbials. For all we have from Maltz and Okrand, it seems that {-Ha'}
makes the adverbial mean its opposite, and those adverbials that do not
have obvious opposites tend to be rejected by Klingons.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
