tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 15 08:55:44 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tay'qa'ghach

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

>From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>
>Quvar:
>
> >Is {tay'qa'ghach} accaptable for [the german] "reunification"?
>
>I think it's fine for the state of being together/united again; i.e. the
>end result.  For the act, however, you might add {-moH} "cause" or {-choH}
>"change in state/direction":
>
>    *{tay'moHghach} unification (caused by an outside force or person)

Well, there's nothing that says {-moH} has to refer to an *outside* force.  
After all, {matay''eghmoHlaH} "We can cause ourselves to be together."

>    *{tay'moHqa'ghach} reunification (caused by an outside force or person)

Wrong suffix order:
     tay'qa'moHghach

>    *{tay'choHghach} unification (the process: separate entities becoming 
>one)

I'd see this more as "the start of unification."  {-choH} refers to a 
beginning, not a process.

>    *{tay'choHqa'ghach} reunification (the process: separate entities again
>becoming one)

That last one doesn't work, as {-choH} and {-qa'} are both Type 3 suffixes.

I don't see any reason to say that {tay'qa'ghach} necessarily refers to the 
end result rather than the process.  {tay'qa'} means "resume being 
together"; {tay'qa'ghach} probably means "the resumption of being together." 
  In English or Klingon, this might be either the process or the end result.

     tay'qa'ghach
     resumption of being together
     together again-ness

SuStel
Stardate 4538.4

_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up ? now 2 months FREE!  
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

Back to archive top level