tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 03 17:31:06 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghojmoH
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ghojmoH
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 12:32:34 -0500
From: m109 <[email protected]>
>Just a question, I'm sure you must have answered this before but please,
>one more time.
Marc Okrand himself has answered this question on his forum.
>Are words like ghojmoH, belHa' and muSHa' actual words or do we count
>them as useful constructions.
They are considered <word> plus <suffix> rather than a distinct word. Thus,
{ghojmoH} is not a new word in and of itself, it is simply {ghoj} plus
{-moH}.
There are apparently a couple of exceptions. {lo'laH} "be valuable" is a
separate word in its own right, and not simply {lo'} plus {-laH}, which
would be "able to use," and not "be valuable." Furthermore, Klingons
occasionally mix up the order of commonly-suffixed verbs. Okrand says that
words like {quvmoH'egh} do occasionally appear, but that the speaker is
perfectly aware that he is breaking the rules, and that it is done for
rhetorical effect. In my opinion, this should not be tried by the beginner
until the nuances of such usages are fully understood. (Ease of translation
is *not* a valid use of this, for instance.)
>Suppose I wanted to say 'Teach yourself!'
>Would I say ghoj'eghmoH *Cause yourself to learn* or ghojmoH'egh *Teach
>yourself*
In general you would have to say {ghoj'eghmoH}. I cannot think offhand of a
particular case where breaking the rules for rhetorical effect would be
useful.
>In my opinion the latter, despite being grammatically incorrect, is
>easier to understand if you have learned ghojmoH as a separate word.
The only reason you would have learned {ghojmoH} as a separate word is
because you are learning Klingon *as a foreigner*. A native Klingon would
learn {ghoj}, and would learn what the word means with the suffix {-moH}
attached to it, but he would not necessarily be thinking of "teach" as a
distinct word as English speakers do. He would be thinking of it as "cause
(someone/something) to learn."
>It
>is not that much of a jump to assume it is a separate word which has
>been created for convenience rather than a construct.
The reasons many of these constructed words appear in the dictionary were
debated much until Okrand himself told us why they are there. They are a
convenience for English speakers only.
>Words with -Ha' are not affected by the above postulation, but are they
>words in their own right too?
No, though there is absolutely no difference between, say, {bel} and
{belHa'} as distinct words or as the same word, one with a suffix. Since no
other suffix can go between the verb and {-Ha'}, the question is moot. The
effect is the same in any case.
SuStel
Stardate 98255.3