tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 15 19:29:44 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: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: nom*i*nal*ize 2. to convert (an underlying clause) into a noun phrase
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:22:55 -0400
- Authentication-results: smtp02.embarq.synacor.com [email protected]; auth=pass (LOGIN)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=embarqmail.com; s=s012408; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; [email protected]; t=1253067785; h=From:Subject:Date:To:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=1q2n+9KYqeZ6t1rjTNMlqW5iarc=; b=juwNSuPIv4mrZQiFgMzdj14xEfqOCZMyX30FNPi7N7/PfYq0C9WfVi+NojSXXVLS VvJDVLINmQfMg9P18OLZNJrqfJ1aoWE2E7E1ZR9u4Ji/lMBjcZKdJCak/sEufYVG;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
- X_cmae_category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined
I like this analysis. It reaches beyond anything I've seen Okrand
explicitly state, but your thinking is obviously a reasonable
extension that explains a lot in Okrand's commentary that might
otherwise be cryptic.
Doq
On Sep 14, 2009, at 1:35 PM, David Trimboli wrote:
> Terrence Donnelly wrote:
>
>> 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}.
>
> I look at {-ghach} as a nominalizer that creates a new word stem. TKD
> says something like (I don't have it with me), "It is not known if all
> verbs can be nouns, but verbs with suffixes can never be nouns." In
> other words, it is looking at words like {quv} and {naD} and saying
> that
> they may be verbs that have become nouns, but the verbs {quvHa'} and
> {naDHa'} (for instance) cannot ever be considered nouns. Using {-
> ghach}
> lets you do exactly what you could do with {quv} and {naD}, but with
> suffixes attached as well. {quv} the verb became {quv} the noun, but
> {quvHa'} the verb cannot become **{quvHa'} the noun, so you use {-
> ghach}
> to explicitly mark that that's what you're doing: {quvHa'ghach}.
>
> In theory, there could be a noun *{tlhutlh}, but there isn't one,
> and we
> know this explicity from KGT. But the existence of {-ghach} still
> allows
> you to work with the verb as if it had a noun counterpart anyway, but
> only for *new* noun stems. *{tlhutlh} is not a noun, so **
> {tlhutlhghach}
> is not a valid noun. It's considered marked, because **{tlhutlhghach}
> would equal *{tlhutlh}, which doesn't exist. And if it did exist, you
> wouldn't need **{tlhutlhghach}. And since {quv} and {naD} both exist
> as
> nouns, you don't need **{quvghach} or **{naDghach}. So {-ghach} is
> only
> used where you are adding verb suffixes to create a new word stem.
>
> --
> SuStel
> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
> http://trimboli.name/mush
>
>
>