tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 17 19:09:59 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

-ghach and noun/verb pairs

From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>

>According to David Trimboli:


>> 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.

I mean I think it's possible that {-ghach} might only be used when trying to
change a verb of a noun/verb pair back to a noun when adding other suffixes
to it.  I've talked about this idea before.

>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}?

Our examples of {-ghach} are

lo'laHghach
value (TKD 176)

lo'laHbe'ghach
worthlessness (TKD 176)

naDHa'ghach
discommendation (TKD 176)

naDqa'ghach
re-commendation (TKD 176)

quvHa'ghach
dishonor (TKW 155)

tlhutlhtaHghach
ongoing drinking (HolQeD 3:3, p.11)

nobghach
givation, one-time donation (marked word) (HolQeD 3:3, pp.11-12)

nobtaHghach
ongoing giving (HolQeD 3:3, p.12)

nobpu'ghach
a given, (finished) (HolQeD 3:3, p.13)

quvmoHghach
process of honoring (HolQeD 3:3, p.13)

quvghach
honoredness (marked term) (HolQeD 3:3, p.13)

nobta'ghach
having given (HolQeD 3:3, p.13)

belpu'ghach
having been pleased (HolQeD 3:3, p.13)

qaleghghach (possibly an illegal term)
sighting of you by me (HolQeD 3:3, p.13)

I think that's all of them.  It's quite possible I missed some.

The {-ghach}'d root words are {lo'}, {naD}, {quv}, {tlhutlh}, {nob}, and
{bel} (not counting {legh}, which may not have been a legal construction
anyway).  Except for {tlhutlh}, all of these are noun/verb pairs.

>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,

Okrand isn't a mystical language-guru who commands the laws of linguistics.
He plays the part of a linguist studying a natural lanuage.  Okrand the
*creator* can use whatever verb he wishes as a noun, because once he does
so, the word has *always been* a noun.  Reverse temporal engineering.

>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?

If you will note, the interview with Okrand concerning {-ghach} in HolQeD
3:3 talks much about noun/verb pairs.  My idea, and one which I am *not*
claiming to be necessarily correct, is that the Klingon language sees a
pair, like {nob/nob}.  The speaker can talk about the noun {nob} "gift."
The speaker can talk about {nob} "give."  But then, the speaker can also
talk about the verb {nobtaH} "ongoing giving."  However, the pre-existing
noun {nob} does not contain this meaning.  You can't stick {-taH} onto it,
because {-taH} is a verb suffix.  So, the speaker is permitted to use the
*verb*, add the suffix he wants, and then add {-ghach} to say, "now pretend
I am allowed to stick this verb suffix on that noun, and keep the whole
thing a noun."

*If* this is the case, that {-ghach} is simply meant to extend the meaning
of a pre-existing noun with a verb suffix, then {-ghach} may only be used on
verbs which have a counterpart noun.  You couldn't say {SuvtaHghach}
"ongoing fighting" for instance, because there is no noun {Suv}.  You
*could* say things like {beltaHghach} "ongoing pleasure," because {bel} is
both a noun and a verb.

The big thing which contradicts this idea is the word {tlhutlhtaHghach},
given above.  At the time I first thought of this, Okrand had not yet
proclaimed "there is no noun for 'drink.'"  This left the matter unclear on
this word.  Once he did, {tlhutlhtaHghach} tends to disprove the idea
(though it's not inconceivable that there is a noun {tlhutlh} with a meaning
we don't know, not that I'm advocating such a noun).

I'm not saying this must be the way things are.  I'm simply stating that it
would clear up some of the unclear langauge used in explaining {-ghach}.

SuStel
Stardate 98294.2

Back to archive top level