tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 30 21:44:03 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -ghach
- From: "Neal Schermerhorn" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: -ghach
- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 00:47:47 -0500
ghItlh SuStel:
>Most likely, {-ghach} entered the language before {lo'laH} did.
>{lo'laHghach} have retained its meaning after {lo'laH} got a new one.
But <lo'> means "use". <lo'laH> means, therefore, "can use". This would
ostensibly be the original meaning of <lo'laH>. Now, <lo'laH> also means "be
valuable" (for those new list members, see TKD p. 176 and compare with what
adding <-laH> to <lo'> should really mean). One would think that adding
<-ghach> to <lo'laH> using the older, more literal definition would yield a
gloss like "ability-to-use-something", not "value". (Horrible way to word
it, granted. Feel free to improve upon it.)
My guess (read it again - GUESS) is that since the special verb <lo'laH>
looks like a verb plus suffix, it's OK to use <-ghach>. Not that I will
condone this usage - I really see it as one more reason to avoid this
construction entirely until such a point that we understand what we're doing
with it.
<whine>
When do we find a reason to use <lo'laHghach> anyway? <lo'laHghach ghaj 'oH>
is, bluntly, crap compared to <lo'laH 'oH> (It is valuable) and I personally
prefer something better, though I have no clue what. I just hate the
<lo'laH> situation, but it is Klingon.
</whine>
vIngDI' tlhIngan SuvwI', ghu' cherghlaH pagh net Sov.
Qermaq