[Tlhingan-hol] how does {-Ha'} work on verbs that affect multiple objects?

[David Trimboli]

On 9/2/2012 2:37 PM, De'vID wrote:
>
> The discussion started with {nobHa'}, defined as "give back, return"
> in KGT.  TKW p.189 has:
> {Huch nobHa'bogh verenganpu''e' yIvoqQo'} "Don't trust Ferengi who
> give back money"
>
> One can imagine the following sequence of events:
> {verenganvaD Huch nob tlhIngan} "The Klingon gave money to the Ferengi"
> {Huch neHbe' verengan} "The Ferengi didn't want the money"
> {Huch nobHa' verengan} "The Ferengi gave the money back"
>
> In the above, {nobHa'} is performed by the Ferengi.  However, could we
> also describe a situation like this?
> {verenganvaD Huch nob tlhIngan} "The Klingon gave money to the Ferengi"
> {Huch tlhapqa' neH tlhIngan} "The Klingon wanted the money back"
> {Huch ?nobHa' tlhIngan} "The Klingon ungave the money, the Klingon
> took his money back"
>
> Is this second scenario a legitimate use of {nobHa'}?  Why or why not?
>   If you didn't have the canon definition and example, would your
> opinion have been different?  Could {nobHa'} mean both "give back" and
> ?"ungive, take back", depending on the context (i.e., whether the
> subject of {nobHa'} was the original giver or recipient of {nob})?

-Ha' doesn't undo the situation you're in; it undoes the meaning of the 
verb, outside of any context.  The question is really what the meaning 
of "give-undone" is. It could be "return" or it could be "take back." 
Fortunately, the canonical example answers this for us: it is "return."

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/