tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 14 09:42:51 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: nom*i*nal*ize 2. to convert (an underlying clause) into a noun phrase
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: nom*i*nal*ize 2. to convert (an underlying clause) into a noun phrase
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1252946014; bh=5nHS3J/+diIRH9Sp7tcUudtikGhtycdvvA8WDbaIxCg=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=GcrNiAW6dbhjTOHyweeDIYMqOp9MF20MyTjzqh/IuWymOwjjFO9Ls8VNqxhPgXPYOWFqSXmmGnKZJyNDjfiPK/WqCiUdjwsSBaG/dValmH/EF3ZuVQClgSiVVL196ZEwZe/TLu1qNPDcDbysODSw5fkUqw8KUD6tHPZ5ukiYp4w=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=bEiDp4z7t/7gwbF4ZioBwlOfJ6W8KDi4M9RQIhvjB6185jyJKnSMyuSAcaCWXPiSXMu1NOmk1VkdIHc45kfBO8XMwi15I4KIjuPl2xrbS1qwKx8r2W0FTF67UyGSZ7UVS7+HQclf+qmU6tQS9Pum2yKdFlThvODdeOq9/Jo6/XQ=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
--- On Mon, 9/14/09, Steven Boozer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I.e. {lo'laHghach}, {lo'laHbe'ghach}, {naDHa'ghach} and
> {naDqa'ghach} (all from TKD). In TKW he used
> {quvHa'ghach} "dishonor" in our sole example of a
> "{-ghach}ed noun" in a sentence:
>
> qaStaHvIS wej puq poHmey vav puqloDpu' puqloDpu'chaj
> je quvHa'moH
> vav quvHa'ghach
> The dishonor of the father dishonors his sons and
> their sons for
> three generations. TKW
>
> Note that all five of these have another suffix between the
> verb and {-ghach}.
>
What's interesting about these is that these are different types of suffixes. From MO's description, it sounded like you couldn't use a naked verb plus {-ghach} because some sort of time or state was implied by {-ghach} that the naked verb didn't convey, so one had to use one of the "aspectual" suffixes, such as {-taH} or {-qa'}. But the only aspectual suffix in the above group is {-qa'}, and the others are more like modal suffixes. So maybe the need for an intervening suffix is more of a formal requirement than something inherent in the meaning of {-ghach}.
-- ter'eS
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}