tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 29 19:23:33 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Sufix #9 ghach
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Sufix #9 ghach
- Date: Thu, 29 May 97 23:20:28 UT
jatlh Edy Fonseca:
> > > And about the Suffix #9 << ghach >> wich is not so clear for me yet.
> > Well, if you've got it, I refer you to HolQeD 3:3 and 3:4, which discuss
> > much
> > on {-ghach
> Is it in Gramarian Desk of Capt. Krankor (pg 69-81)?
I don't have that; I cannot tell you the page numbers.
> I took a look there, but I still having some doubts. How can I say:
>
> The virtue and knowledge walk together. (Socrates)
> (tay' yIt ghob SovtaHghach je)(?) I'm not sure about SovtaHghach,
> Sovghach or anything else! :(
You don't *need* {-chach} here! We have the noun {Sov} "knowledge." Now, if
you wanted to take the noun {Sov}, but mean "absolutely perfect and complete
knowledge," you'd start with the *verb* {Sov}, add {-chu'} to get {Sovchu'}
"knows perfectly," then {-ghach} it to include {-chu'} into the new meaning.
{Sovchu'ghach} "perfect knowledge."
It is my opinion that this adding additional meaning to nouns is what {-ghach}
is really intended for. It's not just there to make instant nouns.
That part is done, but there's the rest of your sentence to consider.
> tay' yIt ghob Sov je
If you're trying to say "They walk together," you have to first realize that
there is no adverbial for "together." (There's "alone," {nIteb}, and one must
wonder if we can add {-Ha'} to this to mean "not alone." Still, this isn't
exactly what we mean, anyway.)
You must use two verbs, {tay'} "be together," and {yIt} "walk." What's the
main action? It's the walking. Well, then, {yIt ghob Sov je} "virtue and
knowledge walk." But they have to do it together! How do we get another verb
in there?
The answer lies in TKD section 6. It explains many of the verbal clauses
which one may use. These allow the sentence to contain a main verb, but also
another verb for use in other capacities. Here, for instance, we'll do the
following with a subordinate clause:
tay'taHvIS ghob Sov je
while virtue and knowledge are together
As you read in section 6, subordinate clauses can go on either side of the
main verb. In this case, we've got:
tay'taHvIS ghob Sov je yIt ghob Sov je
or
yIt ghob Sov je tay'taHvIS ghob Sov je
Virtue and knowledge walk while virtue and knowledge are together.
These, of course, can be shortened by dropping the redundant nouns:
yIt ghob Sov je tay'taHvIS.
Virtue and knowledge walk while they are together.
A better translation in English is, of course, "Virtue and knowledge walk
together." You might even consider saying
yIttaH ghob Sov je tay'taHvIS,
since they don't just walk once, but walk continuously.
Now, this is the grammatical answer. There's the question of idioms, though.
This statement is an idiom which works in English, and presumably in ancient
Greek. I have no idea if Klingons would accept the image of virtue and
knowledge "walking."
There's a rather simple answer to this solution, in case you want to avoid the
poetics (I don't think it's a *bad* metaphor; I'm sure Klingons would
understand it). You can consider using a different main verb:
tay'taH ghob Sov je.
Virtue and knowledge are together.
One might argue that virtue and knowledge are not capable of being in close
proximity to each other any more than they are capable of walking, but I'm not
sure that this level of abstraction is quite as bad. Again, my opinion.
> or as he said:
> "Did you receive his payment"?
*shrug*
I don't see why this one is so hard. {SoHvaD 'oH DIlpu''a' ghaH?} Or just
{SoHvaD DIlpu''a'?}
If one chooses to use Klingon as it is presented, rather than trying to use
nouns where English has nouns, then most sentences are easily recastable.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97409.9