[Tlhingan-hol] How do we know what -Ha' means? (Was: Re: ramwI'mey)

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

Daj.

I always consider what {-be'} would mean and look for the most likely contrast when I see {-Ha'}. If you don't consider {-be'}, you have no guidance except for context, but most of the time considering {-be'} is enough.

I rarely see a wishy-washy, gee-I-don't-know-which-way-it-goes use of {-Ha'}. The glosses we have in TKD never include both possible meanings of {-Ha'}, as if {-Ha'} really had two possible interpretations. There's always only one meaning given for any specific verb.

That's WHY {yajHa'} means "misunderstand". Because it is more extreme than merely NOT understanding. That's why {chu'Ha'} means to disengage. It is more extreme than simply not engaging. Okrand had to give us two "meanings" for {-Ha'} because there isn't one English definition for {-Ha'} that can be tagged on to every verb it can be applied to.

That doesn't mean that he meant that it could go either way. Examples below.

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
lojmIttI7wI7nuv at gmail.com



On Feb 28, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Qov wrote:

> A discussion about a misunderstood word (attached below) has led to a question about how we know what -Ha' means. I don't remember having had much trouble with it in context, or people unable to understand my usage. Do we just use context and canon? I'll pick some random verbs and you tell me what your tlhIngan Hol Duj tells you they mean. Qagh pagh lagh pagh Dap? I'll give my impressions in another e-mail so as not to prejudice your choices.
> 
> nenHa'

Immature. This is more extreme than simply being not mature.

> cha'Ha'

I'd see this as a synonym for {So'}. You do not merely not show something. You actively and intentionally hide something.

> SevHa'

I'd expect this to imply abandoning containment entirely. You sign a treaty to completely withdraw your troops. You decide to stop containing your enemy. Whatever. This is far more than simply failing to contain them, or not start containing them. They were contained, and now they are utterly and undeniably not contained. Suddenly, they are anywhere they want to go.

> wuDHa'

You were snoring really loud, then you fell silent. You are not merely not snoring. You have undone the action of snoring, like {chu'} and {chu'Ha'}. You can not snore when you have never snored, but this is more than that. You were snoring and now you are very noticeably not snoring.

> tlhIvHa'

You follow orders to an extreme. You do not merely not be insubordinate. You are notably and actively the opposite of being insubordinate.

> jeghHa'

Again, it has to be more extreme than merely not surrendering. If a blatantly superior force pauses before attacking you and demands that you surrender, and your response is to attack, fighting to the death, THAT'S jeghHa'. Remember the end of the movie 300? Chucking that spear was jeghHa'.

In the context of having just surrendered, if you reverse the action, I could see this as a specific and unusual use of {jeghHa'}, since it is a more extreme negative than not surrendering, but that really doesn't feel like {jeghHa'} to me.

> 'IqHa'

I think it means "be too few". It's not merely not too many. It's too few.

I can't imagine a better way to express "too few" or "too little".

> pumHa'

Falling up. It's not merely not falling. It's not floating. It just zoomed up to the ceiling hit with a clatter and stayed there. A helium balloon might be said to pumHa' if it kept going until it disappeared.

> HeSHa'

If you get revenge for a crime committed against you, bIHeSHa'. If you repay your victim of a crime you committed to a degree that satisfies the victim, then bIHeSHa'. You don't merely not commit a crime. You undo the crime.

My point here is that I don't think that {-Ha'} really means that it is either done badly or that it is undone. I think it means a greater extreme of negative than {-be'}. Without considering what {-be'} would mean, you can't fully understand what {-Ha'} means because {-Ha'} exists exclusively to indicate a greater degree of negation than {-be'}.

This can mean something different on different verbs, but it almost never means something different in different contexts on the same verb. This is where I really disagree with most who have answered this post up to this point.

It's just my opinion, but it's at the foundation of my understanding of {-Ha'} that I've maintained for a way whole lotta years. I'm probably going to be stubborn about it. Somebody would have to show me some sort of canon to make me budge, since everything I've seen up to this point has convinced me that {-Ha'} is not a couple of different potential things on every verb it is applied to. It's one thing on each verb, and that thing might have to be translated a couple of different ways in English depending on which verb it's being applied to.

Think about it. Look at the canon. Look at the dictionary. Think some more.

THEN, you can vent your spleen at me if you still disagree. No sense working up another heated argument before people actually measure the proposed interpretation against what is already out there in the usage of {-Ha'}.

pItlh.

> Feel free to add more, add examples, write context, whatever adds to the discussion.
> 
> - Qov
> 
>> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> >> > vIlagh. vIlaghHa'. vIlaghqa'. vIlaghHa'qa'. jImon.
>> 
>> De'vID:
>> >> DalaghHa''a'?  pagh Damutlh'a'?
>> >> {laghHa'} lo'lu'chugh laghDI' Qagh 'e' vIQub.  ghaytan DalaghHa'be'.
>> 
>> Qov:
>> > jIQochqu'. lagh 'ej laghHa'bej. mu'mey ngo' Qaw'be' mu'mey chu'.
>> 
>> pIj {-Ha'} vIyajbe'.  ghorgh {Qagh} 'oS 'ej ghorgh "undo, be/do the
>> opposite" 'oS?
>> 
>> rut {Qagh} 'oSba':
>> {jatlhHa'}
>> {bachHa'}
>> 
>> "unspeak", "unshoot" je chavlaHbe'mo' vay' "misspeak", "misfire" je 'oSba'.
>> 
>> rut "be the opposite" 'oSba':
>> {belHa'}
>> {QuchHa'}
>> 
>> rut "undo, do the opposite" 'oS:
>> {tuQHa'}
>> {buSHa'}
>> {nobHa'}
>> {parHa'}
>> 
>> {tatlh} neH 'oSbe' {nobHa'}.  {nobpu' ghIq tatlh} 'oS.
>> 
>> qatlh "un-disassemble" 'oS {laghHa'} 'ej "mis-disassemble" 'oSbe'?
>> vIyajbe'.  {laghHa'} vIlaDDI' {laghDI' Qagh} 'e' vIyaj.
>> 
>> De'vID:
>> >> (mu' chu' 'oH {mutlh}'e'.  qen wISuqpu'.)
>> 
>> Qov:
>> > laghbe'pu'chugh 'ej HIch chenmoHmeH 'ay'mey Sar lo'chugh chaq mutlh. laghpu'DI' laghHa'bej.
>> 
>> ramqu' mu' chu'.  {mutlh} wIHutlhchugh, {laghHa'} vIyajmeH choHbe'
>> mIw.  {-Ha'} vIyajbe'law' neH.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol