tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 22 07:14:41 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lo'laHghach (was: Quj bej Holtej qorDu')
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: lo'laHghach (was: Quj bej Holtej qorDu')
- Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:14:37 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Marc Ruehlaender" at May 22, 98 07:05:44 am
This {lo'laHghach} stuff is an interesting argument. I think it
is good to also recognize that {lo'laH} was only declared as a
separate verb stem very recently, while {lo'laHghach} was
offered as an example likely long before Okrand ever considered
this.
If we want to fit this into pseudo-history, it is simple enough
to explain that {lo'laH} became a single verb stem about the
same time that {lo'laHghach} became an acceptable noun meaning
"value". Both of these evolutions occurred over time and so
those making the transition never saw a conflict over the issue
of meaning and {-ghach} not having a normal intervening suffix.
We could even imagine that the first use of both of these words
({lo'laH} used adjectivally and {lo'laHghach}) occurred in a
single, very popular story which was probably grammatically
flawed, but everyone understood it and accepted the new words.
charghwI'
According to Marc Ruehlaender:
>
> ja' SuStel:
> > For another, {lo'laHghach} must obviously be {lo'} + {-laH} + {-ghach}, not
> > {lo'laH} + {-ghach}.
> >
> but {lo'} + {laH} + {-ghach} literally means "ability to use";
> how does that mean "value" (TKD p.176)?
>
> {lo'laH} + {-ghach} means "valuableness" or something like that;
> I can see how THAT could mean "value".
>
> Or do you suggest that {lo'}+{-laH}+{-ghach} has lost the literal
> meaning and is now a 3-syllabic noun meaning "value"??
>
> I'd rather say that {lo'laH}+{-ghach} has been in use long enough
> to not be considered marked anymore.
>
> Marc Ruehlaender
> aka HomDoq
> [email protected]
>
>