tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 31 08:06:31 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: jIyajbe'
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: jIyajbe'
- Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 10:11:34 -0500
>>What about <ghach>? I have seen some confusion on when and how this
>>can/should be used. According to my TKD, it would appear that it can only
>>be used when the verb has a suffix. ie: <naDHa'ghach> for
>>"discommendation".
dancat replies:
>You are mistaken here, {-ghach} can be used on noun without suffixes too...
Pardon my presumption, but I think it's time for some "spin control" here.
Point #1: the original note was posted under the KLBC header. *PLEASE*
let the Beginners' Grammarian answer before giving your comments. This
rule is supposed to keep the possibility of confusion to a minimum, and
leads me to...
Point #2: dancat's response is, to put it mildly, incorrect. To begin
with, {-ghach} is a *verb* suffix, and is *never* placed on a noun,
suffixes or no suffixes. As to the original question:
>TKD page 176 4.2.9. "...as nouns, but it is know that verbs ending in
>suffixes (...) can never be nouns. The Type 9 suffix {-ghach}, however, can
>be added to such verbs in order to form nouns." This piece of text doesn't
>have the words "...can only be added to..." in it, thusly my interpretation
>has always been that if a verb had no noun counterpart, that was known, one
>could, only as distinguished noun, highlight it with the Type 9 suffix
>{-ghach}.
This used to be Captain Krankor's interpretation also (HolQeD 3:1, pp. 8-9),
but we now know differently. Marc Okrand explained {-ghach} clearly in an
interview (HolQeD 3:3, pp. 10-13). To the question "Can we use the suffix
{-ghach} on a naked stem?" he replied "The general answer to that is 'no.'"
It's not entirely ungrammatical, but it's going to call a lot of attention
to the word and people are going to say "that's a unique formation" and be
distracted from the intended meaning.
>>Does this mean that it is equivalent to putting "-tion"
>>in English? What do I do when I need a noun which is roughly "thing which
>>is", such as when I was working on computer terms and wanted a word for a
>>"program". I had <ghun> as a verb for "to program", but needed it to be a
>>noun.
For active verbs like {vIt} or {che'}, "-tion" is a reasonable translation.
It's the process involved. For a stative verb such as {tIn} or {'ugh}, the
idea is usually "-ness".
In this case, {*ghunghach} seems to come close to the meaning "programming".
It's the *activity*, not the result. One can make the word itself a little
less marked by choosing an aspect suffix: {ghunpu'ghach} would refer to the
act of having programmed, {ghunta'ghach} would mean having intentionally
programmed something, {ghunlI'ghach} would be the processes of programming
with a particular goal, and {ghuntaHghach} is ongoing programming with no
particular goal implied. But they all refer to the *process* of programming.
>I think the word is acceptable, but some may disagree. In this case choose
>the path that you find correct and plausible...
The word is strange, and seems to have the wrong meaning. I would certainly
disagree. I believe he appropriate way to refer to a "computer program" in
Klingon depends on what the program is and how it is used. Is it a process
which computes? Is it a game, a tool, a "hack"? Get specific, and then try
to explain the specific result as something which has been programmed.
For example, I call a "word-analyzer program" a {mu' pojwI' ghunlu'ta'bogh}.
>>According to TKD, and what I've seen here <ghunghach> is illegal.
>
>You must have a different TKD than I do...
dancat apparently has to pay more attention to "what I've seen here" as well.
The proper use of {-ghach} has been explained in detail, and shouldn't have
to be a perennial argument.
-- Alan Anderson, professional programmer and amateur Klingonist