[94605] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Wed Sep 5 11:23:41 2012
In-Reply-To: <50476B1F.7030803@trimboli.name>
From: Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:23:12 -0700
To: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
Cc: "tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org"
<tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
This is what makes sense to me, but to me both immediately and now have the same opposite--later.
On 2012-09-05, at 8:09, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
