[Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs

[Felix Malmenbeck]

Dajqu'!

For those interested, here you can read about the rejection of vajHa':
http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1995-12-holqed-04-4.txt&get=source

[Technically, it seems to me it's not so much a clear statement that it's wrong but more that Maltz wouldn't use.]

Some speculative constructss:

*loQHa' = "lots"
 - *loQHa' qaparHa'. = "I like you a lot."
*tlhoyHa' = "not enough"
 - *tlhoyHa' choparHa'. = "You don't like me enough."
*pay'Ha' = "gradually, bit by bit"
 - *pay'Ha' jIropHa'choHlI'. = "I'm recovering, bit by bit."
*qenHa' = "long ago"
 - *qenHa' qIb Hopqu'Daq... = "A long time ago, in a very distant galaxy..."
*wejHa' = "already"
 - *wejHa' ta'lI'. = "He/she is already working on it."
*tagha'Ha' = "already (sooner than expected)"
 - *tagha'Ha' rIntaH'a' qep'a'? = "Is qep'a' over already?"

________________________________________
From: Qov [robyn at flyingstart.ca]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 16:59
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: [Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs

Asked if jaSHa' and pe'vIlHa' were okay, Marc said, "Why wouldn't
they be?" implying that -Ha' on adverbs is generally accepted, if the
meaning is obvious. vajHa' has already been canonically rejected, but
given the general confusion regarding what chaqHa' and rutHa' could
mean, they were not accepted.

SaH ghunchu'wI', 'angghal, QeS je. lutchaj vIja' neH.

- Qov


_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol