[Tlhingan-hol] -Ha' on adverbs

[De'vID]

De'vID:
>> I'd understand {DaHHa'} as an urgent version of {SIbI'Ha'}, in the same
>> way that {SIbI'} is an urgent version of {DaH}.

QeS 'utlh:
> I'm having trouble coming to grips with the distinction. Why is DaHHa' the
> urgent one of the -Ha'-ed pair?

I have a mental image of what {DaH} and {SIbI'} look like as heat maps
on a time line, and my mental image of those words with {-Ha'} are
their opposites (or inverses, I suppose).  No real reason that I can
justify to someone else, really.

De'vID:
>> {DaH qama' yIHoH} "Kill the prisoner now!"
>> {DaHHa'} "Not now!"

QeS 'utlh:
> Ah; you make a fair point here. I guess {DaHHa'} "sometime other than now"
> might work, though I don't sense the nuance of sense between it and SIbI'Ha'
> that you do.

There's not much difference between "now" and "immediately" when you
give a command, anyway.

De'vID:
>> If {DaHHa'} doesn't work, how else would you say "not now"?

QeS 'utlh:
> I normally hate answering questions with other questions, but I will here:
> how would you have said "not now" last week, before we knew anything about
> this?

If I wanted to *literally* say "not now", in Klingon, I wouldn't have
been able to.  I would've fallen back on {SIbI'Ha'}, I suppose.  And
before we learned {SIbI'Ha'}, I would've had to repeat the verb, but
with {-be'} or {-Qo'}.  Or use {wej}, or {[yI/pe]loS}.

De'vID:
>> I'd also understand {ngughHa'} as "at a different time"

QeS 'utlh:
> I guess I see that: "not at the same time, at some other time". Though it
> seems awfully vague and I doubt it would see much use.

{Qugh Daleghpu''a'?} "Did you see Kruge?"
{HIja'.} "Yes."
{ngugh mogh Daleghpu''a' je?  Qugh tlhej} "Did you also see Mogh then?
 He was with Kruge."
{ngughHa' mogh vIleghpu'.} "I saw Mogh but at a different time."

De'vID:
>> and {ghIqHa'} as "not subsequently, after some time".

QeS 'utlh:
> So in other words, basically equivalent to SIbI'Ha'? The basic purpose of
> ghIq is to mark an action as being later in time than another: {jISop. ghIq
> jIQong} "I ate. After that, I slept." By how much is left unstated. I don't
> get how ghIqHa' should in some way project Qong even further into the future
> to be "after some time". If anything I'd understand ghIqHa' as "before that,
> priorly" (so like wejHa', we've already got more than one conflicting
> meaning between us), and since we already have -pa' for "before", I wouldn't
> see much utility for ghIqHa' in that sense either.

I guess it could be argued either way, so yeah, it's probably best to avoid it.

De'vID:
>> {Ha'DIbaH HoH tlhIngan, ghIq Ha'DIbaH Sop tlhIngan. Ha'DIbaH HoH
>> tera'ngan, 'ach ghIqHa' Ha'DIbaH Sop tera'ngan. Huj tera'nganpu'.}

QeS 'utlh:
> Odd to the point of incomprehensibility for me.

It was a bit artificial.  It's much clearer as {'ach SIbI'Ha' Ha'DIbaH
Sop tera'ngan} or {'ach SIbI' Ha'DIbaH Sopbe'}.

-- 
De'vID