tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 01 18:30:03 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: What about {-ghach}?
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: What about {-ghach}?
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 21:30:00 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Alan Anderson" at Feb 1, 95 7:05 pm
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> I keep reading that Okrand "solved the {-ghach} problem."
> What was the problem? TKD isn't really all that specific,
> but the way I read the examples, {-ghach} could be translated
> as "result of" (sort of like {moH} in reverse). I don't have
> TKD handy, so pardon the {Holmey cha'} here...would
> *learn*pu'ghach = *knowledge*? ("result of having learned")
The {-ghach} "problem" is that if you look really closely at
the language, you'll notice that Okrand says you can use
{-ghach} on verbs WITH SUFFIXES to make them nouns. He never
said you could use it on verbs with no other suffix. He also
didn't give much guidance on what suffixes are okay and what
suffixes are not okay, or how it should be translated,
depending on what suffixes you used.
Then Lawrence had an hour-long interview with Okrand about
{-ghach} and condensed the recorded result into an article in
HolQeD vol 3 no 3. There, Okrand explains that putting {-ghach}
on a bare verb would sound REALLY STRANGE. A Klingon would
probably understand it, but he would also know that he was
dealing with a stupid tourist who does not know or love the
language. (That's my spin on it. Okrand merely said, "It's a
highly marked form", relating it to English non-words, like
"pleasureness" or "collapsation".
For the rest, I'll refer you back to HolQeD. It's a great place
to pick up stuff like this. A subscription is de rigour for
anyone serious about the language and back issues are worth the
cost and hassle.
> -- ghunchu'wI
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |