tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 16 14:13:11 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: My first try at tlhIngan Hol KLBC
According to David Trimboli:
>
...
> However, the point is that {'IHbe'ghach} seems to be a normal-sounding word
> to Klingon ears, so the best translation would be one that sounded normal to
> English-speakers' ears.
>
> Then again, I'm still not convinced that {-ghach} isn't reserved only for
> noun/verb identical pairs. I rather like the idea, and there is a bit of
> support for it.
nuqjatlh? I cannot extract meaning from this string of words.
You are not convinced that {-ghach} is not reserved only for
noun/verb identical pairs. What does this mean? There are
homonyms such that one word in the pair is a noun and the other
word in the pair is a verb, like {'oy'} and {'oy'}. What does
this have to do with {-ghach}?
>From conversations with Okrand at qep'a' on {-ghach}, it seemed
to me that while the rest of us cannot use a verb as a noun,
Okrand can, but that trick won't work if the noun he wants is
the nominalization of a suffixed verb, like {naDHa'}. For that,
he would have had to have made up a new noun. Instead, he came
up with {-ghach}. The nominalization is based upon the function
of the suffix.
Since there are so many different potential nominalized
meanings of a verb the suffix plus {-ghach} gives us a clue as
to what it is about the verb that is being nominalized; what
kind of meaning such a noun would have. What does this have to
do with pairs?
> SuStel
> Stardate 98288.1
charghwI'