tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 12 17:05:36 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -ghach (oh no)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -ghach (oh no)
- Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:35:16 -0400
From: Qov <[email protected]>
>At 17:45 98-05-11 -0700, you wrote:
>}From: Qov <[email protected]>
>}>And, it's got to be said, while I agree it seems that the nominalization
>}of
>}>a process is what's happening, that *isn't* what Okrand has said.
>}
>}I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying Okrand doesn't explicitly
>}mention nominalization? What about page 176 of TKD: "{-ghach}
nominalizer"?
>
>Okrand does not say that verb + ghach = noun for process of doing verb.
>He says verb + ghach = noun
Okay, in TKD this is indeed what he says, in its simplest form. However, he
expands upon this in HolQeD 3:3. "So {-ghach} means something like
condition of being X, if X is stative. Or action or process involved with,
or maybe result of the action, but the process involved with Y where Y is,
for the lack of a better term, an active verb."
Besides being yet another example of the apparent, unclassified split of
Klingon verb types (stative/quality and active), this does explain pretty
much what {-ghach} means. It's not *only* the nominalization of the process
of the verb (I don't remember if that's what the original poster thought),
but that's one of the valid interpretations, depending on the context or
word.
SuStel
Stardate 98362.6