tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 06 19:51:36 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The suffix -ghach
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: The suffix -ghach
- Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 22:50:13 -0500
Paulvo':
>-ghach is really completely different. Okay, not completely. But pretty
>different. -ghach is used to create something along the lines of the phrase
>"the act of <verb>ing". HoHghach would mean "killing", as in "the act of
>killing".
This is actually not what this means, and was one of the subejcts of Okrand's
recent article in HolQeD 3:3. The simple construction <*HoHghach>
(the asterisk indicating a non-standard form) would be something
like "*killation," an abstract nominal without respect to aspect (or tense).
He points out that the Klingon, just like the English, is understandable,
and could even be used, in perhaps technical, definitely stilted, contexts.
But consider the form you refer to, "killing." Although this form is
neutral to tense (it doesn't pin down the activity, or the instance of the
activity) to a specific time, it definitely incorporates aspect; the activity
is ongoing: it's a process, it's not instantaneous. Okrand concludes,
that the proper use of -ghach in this context would be: HoHtaHghach.
Note that this much is consistent with what Proechel was trying to do,
but at the same time, refutes his (Proechel's) main point, that ANY bare
verbs could be used as noun.
If you can, read Okrand's article in HolQeD. It's in the form of an
interview
between Lawrence and Okrand, and it's really quite enlightening, if a bit
winding at times.
Holtej