tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 20 14:36:07 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Nick's comments on HolQeD



>I dispute.  -pu' still means the action is completed, and one might
>well want to nominalize a verb which is neither continuous nor
>complete.  An example just off the top of my head:  Suvghach-- "a
>fight", or perhaps "fighting", as the gerund (*this* to me is the
>more interesting -ghach issue-- exactly *how* does it nominalize?).
>We'll make the sentence:  rut Suvghach vItIv -- "I enjoy a good
>fight now and then."  SuvtaHghach wouldn't work, that means
>continuous fighting, not the kind of brief scuffle I'm trying to
>allude to.  But Suvpu'ghach would definitely seem to mean more
>"having fought"-- after all, by -pu', the action is complete.
>That's not what I mean at all; I mean I enjoy it while I'm doing it,
>not afterwards.

I don't think "fighting" vs. "a/the fight" is any improtant distinction in
Klingon. What *IS* a very important distinction is whether or not YOU were
involved in the fight. Is it "I enjoy [watching] an occasional fight" or "I
enjoy [participating in] an occasional fight"?? Thus, resort to {'e'} to
disambiguate in this case:

{rut jISuv 'e' vItIv} or
{rut Suv [vay'] 'e' vItIv}

In the latter example, of course, it might come out much nicer as {rut may'
vItIv}. This implies (at least to me) that the speaker is a spectator, not a
participant, but an alternate interpretation is perfectly okay.

If ever you have a nominalized verb used as your object, look carefully. In
most cases like that, you can (and should) recast with the {'e'} pronoun.
E.g., instead of {wo' nIvghach wImaq}, try {nIv wo' 'e' wImaq}. (Off the
subject here: in this case I would argue that the {'e'} could be dropped, as
{maq} is a verb of speaking. But that's beside the real point I'm making.)

{'e'} is used to allow clauses to act as objects. Using a verb nominalized by
{-ghach} as an object is unnecessary, and (may I be so bold) stylistically
improper.

It is improper in the sense that it unnecessarily creates controversy. Why
use a controversial formation when a grammatically acceptable alternative is
available?

It's the same principle behind why we say {jInIvmo'} rather than
{nIvghachwIjmo'}, or {DaSIQmeH} rather than {DaSIQghachvaD}.


Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos



Back to archive top level