tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 08 03:17:44 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TKD Question
- From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: TKD Question
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 96 06:17:20 EDT
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 7 Aug 1996 20:32:28 -0700. <[email protected]>
[email protected] writes:
\ I couldn't actually find {-ghach} in the TKD, I thought it was used to turn
\ verbs into nouns, that's why I put the {-Ha'} after {-ghach}
Ah, but if {-ghach} turns verbs into nouns, then as soon as you've put
the {ghach} on the verb, it's not a verb anymore, but a noun, and
therefore can't take any more verb suffixes (like {-Ha'}), qar'a'?
This is part of the reason why {-ghach}, like {-wI'}, is a type 9 suffix. It's
in the TKD addendum; if you have the newer TKD (large
format, with a photo of Kruge, Maltz, and Torg from ST3 on the cover),
then you'll find {-ghach} on page 176. If you have the older TKD
(pocket paperback size, with a drawing of a Bird of Prey on the cover,
er, if even older, with an embossed Bird of Prey on the paper non-glossy
cover), then {-ghach} is not listed anywhere in your book.
Also, according to an interview with Marc Okrand, {-ghach} can only be used
on verbs that already have a suffix (and thus, even if the verb stem is the
same as a noun, cannot be used as a noun anymore). Well, he said that
you *could* put {-ghach} on a bare verb, but it's a highly marked form -
unusual, stands out, probably not seen except maybe in poetry. So
{Dojghach} is a very strange-looking noun; *{DojghachHa'} is illegal because
nouns can't take verb suffixes; {DojHa'ghach} is a perfectly normal noun.
-marqoS
--
Mark J. Reed |
Email: [email protected] | HP Internet/System Security Lab
Voice: +1 404 648 9535 | 2957 Clairmont Rd Suite 220
Fax : +1 404 648 9516 | Atlanta GA 30329-1647 USA