tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 17 17:06:46 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:QonoS ra'wI' QIv baroS SD98020.5
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC:QonoS ra'wI' QIv baroS SD98020.5
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:06:44 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromQov on Fri, 6 Feb 1998 22:06:46 -0800 (PST))
>Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 22:06:46 -0800 (PST)
>From: Qov <[email protected]>
>
>At 16:04 98-02-06 -0800, Lt. Cmdr. Barrows wrote:
>
>}outpost. (3)
>}3) On re-reading this I wondered whether I should have used a <-taHghach> on
>}<chenmoH> to 'nounify' it. It's the process of creating disease the scientists
>}were researching ... I just thought <chenmoHtaHghach> was a bit of a monster.
>}::shrug::
>
>I was looking for a way to get you out of using a verb for a noun the way
>you have, but you've just supplied it yourself.
>
>{rop chenmoHbogh mIw luQultaH DIvI' tej}
>"Federation scientists were studying the disease creation process"
>(lit. ... "the process that creates disease" OR "the disease that is created
>by a process." And as they were kind of studying the whole system, that's
>kind of cool.
This is true, but I note in passing that there's no need for -taHghach
(unless you want to emphasize the ongoingneess) when -ghach will do.
Remember, you can't put -ghach on bare verbs. But "chenmoH" isn't a bare
verb, it's a verb plus the -moH suffix! Conversely, don't use -taH just to
add a suffix that doesn't mean anything: it has a meaning and it imparts
it. It's not just a placeholder to keep the -ghach from touching the verb.
-taHghach as a "unit" sounds like an Esperantism to me: iri/to go becomes
irado/the act of going, with the noun-ending -o and the "ongoing" suffix
-ad.
~mark