[Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

Also for those who're interested, the adverb-Ha' question grew out of a discussion Qov and I had a few weeks back about the lack of a dedicated adverb meaning "likewise, in the same way", for which Qov proposed ?jaSHa'. (Qov deserves thanks for posting the adverb-Ha' info to the list, by the way. I 
was the one who asked the question of Marc but couldn't immediately repost his 
response, and Qov honourably passed the info
 on as ghunchu'wI' and I were telling her about it at breakfast the next
 morning. Qov, qatlho'.)

As Qov said, Marc basically implied that -Ha' is *grammatically* legal on any adverb, but for some it's semantically nonsensical. It was 'angghal who pointed out during the conversation that ??chaqHa' would be weird, and ghunchu'wI' then thought of rut. So the sense we got is that while ??chaqHa' or ??rutHa' are grammatically legal, they just aren't usefully meaningful (like chIS'egh or HolDaq). ngugh, ghIq and DaH probably wouldn't work with -Ha' for the same reason.

ghItlhpu' loghaD, jatlh:
> Some speculative constructss:

Some of these I really like, and some I really don't. I won't go into any of them except this one:

> *wejHa' = "already"
>  - *wejHa' ta'lI'. = "He/she is already working on it."

See, this one is really problematic. I would have thought wejHa' to mean "no longer, not any more", and while discussing it at the aforementioned breakfast ghunchu'wI' noted another potential meaning (I don't remember it, unfortunately) that was also logical.

QeS
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120905/5774f2c6/attachment.html>