[Tlhingan-hol] Fwd: ramwI'mey

[De'vID jonpIn]

The following was intended for the list by lojmit tI'wI' nuv but was
sent only to me by accident because of the way the mailing list is set
up.

He gave me his permission to forward it to the list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] ramwI'mey
To: De'vID jonpIn <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com>

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:

Discussion below.

On Feb 28, 2012, at 11:01 AM, De'vID jonpIn wrote:

...

> jI'uchtaHvIS jIbel. pup jan 'oH. chenmoHlu'chu'pu'.

maj.  'IHbej nuHvam.

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> vIlagh. vIlaghHa'. vIlaghqa'. vIlaghHa'qa'. jImon.

DalaghHa''a'?  pagh Damutlh'a'?

{laghHa'} lo'lu'chugh laghDI' Qagh 'e' vIQub.  ghaytan DalaghHa'be'.

(mu' chu' 'oH {mutlh}'e'.  qen wISuqpu'.)

The {-Ha'} suffix is confusing enough for many that it's probably
worth breaking to English to explain it more clearly. Mostly, I think
this is the case because this discussion is going on for an impressive
number of iterations.

Contrasting the {-be'} suffix which simply negates the verb, {-Ha'}
does one of two things. It either indicates a kind of error as it does
in {yajHa'} where you do not simply fail to understand, you
misunderstand -- you have a false understanding; you believe that you
understand when in fact you do not understand.

Or, it means to reverse an action, as in {So'wI' yIchu'Ha'}.
{yIchu'be'} would have merely told you to not engage it. When I use
{-Ha'} here, I'm clearly not ordering you to badly engage the cloaking
device. I don't want you to believe that you have engaged the cloaking
device when you, in fact, have not. I don't want you to bungle the
task of engaging the cloaking device. I want you to DISengage the
cloaking device; to undo the action of engaging the cloaking device.

So, when I say {HIchwIj vIlagh, ghIq vIlaghHa'}, I mean that I
disassembled the pistol, then I assembled the pistol. I didn't
disassemble the pistol and then badly disassemble it, or believe that
I disassembled it when I didn't in fact do so. I assemble it. That's
not the same thing as {vIlaghbe'}, since I'm not merely not
disassembling it. I'm assembling it.

These are the two ways that Klingon uses {-Ha'} to indicate something
more extreme than simple negation.

Is this more clear now?

Likely, the confusing thing here is that this is one of those verbs in
Klingon that is a negated verb in English, like {par} -- "dislike".
{parbe'} indicates the mere absence of disliking. You can feel really
neutral about something and satisfy {parbe'}. But if you actively like
something, you need {parHa'}. It's not the absence of disliking. It's
the opposite of disliking.

So, {laghHa'} is not the mere absence of disassembling. It's the
opposite of disassembling.


--
De'vID