[Tlhingan-hol] Marc Okrand about Into Darkness

[Robyn Stewart]

Nice work. I feel a little badly about Marc getting caught out by the same
question nine years apart.  But mind you nine years ago "for reals" and "I
can haz qep'a' date?" wouldn't have been valid utterances either.

- Qov

-----Original Message-----
From: De'vID [mailto:de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com] 
Sent: January 15, 2014 4:37
To: tlhIngan-Hol
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Marc Okrand about Into Darkness

Quvar:
>> http://www.qephom.de/e/okrand_about_into_darkness.html

De'vID:
> "the stuff I had submitted had no new material, except for one half 
> new word, which was jaSHa', meaning "similarly". "
>
> We sort of already knew this (from a msg dated 2012-08-30 from Qov), 
> but it's nice to hear a confirmation from another occasion.

Digging up the message - from Qov (2012-08-30):
> Asked if jaSHa' and pe'vIlHa' were okay, Marc said, "Why wouldn't they
be?"
> implying that -Ha' on adverbs is generally accepted, if the meaning is 
> obvious. vajHa' has already been canonically rejected, but given the 
> general confusion regarding what chaqHa' and rutHa' could mean, they 
> were not accepted.
>
> SaH ghunchu'wI', 'angghal, QeS je. lutchaj vIja' neH.

I found an even older message about this - from Voragh (2006-12-20):
> Note that the postulated adverbial *{jaSHa'} "similarly, in the same way"
> does not exist.  peHruS reported on a conversation he had with Okrand:
>
>    At the 2000 qep'a' in conversation with MO, I went over the list
>    I had prepared of adverbs + {-Ha'}. This was the very one which I
>    was disappointed to learn from MO himself that it does NOT work.
>    He never explained why. [...] Merely that (possibly not verbatim):
>    "I don't think it works." He did not volunteer any other informa-
>    tion about why it doesn't SEEM to work or what else would work.
>
> peHruS prepared his list after reading Okrand's comment in HolQeD 4.4:
>
>    Whether this {-Ha'} can be added to all adverbials is not clear.
>    The notes taken while working with Maltz indicate that he balked
>    at {vajHa'} ("not thus?") but accepted {Do'Ha'} "unfortunately".
>    Information on other adverbials has not yet been uncovered, though
>    it is probably in the notes somewhere.

It seems that some time between 2000 and 2009, MO changed his mind on
{jaSHa'}.

--
De'vID

_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol