tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 22 16:49:14 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mughwI'
On Tue, 22 Nov 1994, William H. Martin wrote:
> According to [email protected]:
> ..
> > mughwI''e' lo'taHbogh Paul vISovbe', 'ach <ftp-site>Daq ghunghachmey
> > law' tu'lu'. <pojwI'30.zip> vIghunta'. latlh puS tu'lu'.
> ..
> > --Holtej
> Does anybody like the idea of the word {De'wI'He} as a possible
> substitute for {ghunghach}?
To me {De'wI'He} is less ambiguous than {ghunghach}. {De'wI'mIw} might
be okay too. If someone says {ghunghach} I can't tell whether they are
referring to a specific program or programming in general without reading
it in the context of a sentence. In any case, I don't think that
{ghunghach} is acceptable. In Okrand's recent interview in HolQeD, he says
you generally can't use {-ghach} on a bare stem, and if you do, it is a
"highly marked form." He also says that when {-ghach} is used on an
"active" verb, it is used to describe a process. E.g. {ghuntaHghach}
"programming" (literally, the ongoing process of programming).
I think it would probably be better to say {ghunta'ghach} (the
completed process of programming) for "program".
I know {ghunta'ghach} sounds like a weird way to refer to a program,
because it generally refers to a completed action instead of an object but
that's because in English, we usually refer to the end result rather than
the action which produced it. Okrand indicated that {-ghach} on an
active verb not only indicates a process but the result of a process.
In Klingon, with its overwhelming predominance of verbal constructions
instead of nouns, seems to focus on actions instead of objects. In many
cases the act of doing something becomes indistinguishable from the tangible
result that action produces because that result is part of the process
itself. For example, when you say {ghunta'ghach} you always have the
implied existance of the tangible result of that which you programmed,
i.e. the "program", and the two (the action and the object) are really
inseparable.
ghunta'ghachmey law' ngaS De'wI'wIj qawHaq.
(The memory banks of my computer contain many programs/instances of
that which has been programmed.)
Does this make sense to anyone, or am I stretching things a bit too far?
nuq boQub?
> charghwI'
yoDtargh