tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 10 15:25:03 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: {-ghach}
As Beginners' Grammarian, I must answer KLBC: posts, though as
one who mysteriously gets HolQeD weeks after everyone else,
this time I lack resources to authoritively reply. Others with
the article may wish to supplement my attempt.
According to R.B Franklin:
>
>
> toH, qaSDI wejHu' juHwIjDaq pawpu' "HolQeD". "-ghach" wot mojaq ngaSbogh
> paqHomvetlh 'ay' vIlaDta'.
Since you did not indicate whether the subject or object was
the head noun of the relative clause, this could mean either
that you read the section of that booklet which contained the
verb suffix "-ghach", or that you read the verb suffix "-ghach"
which is contained in the section of that booklet, which would
require far less reading... {{:)>
Remember that objects can serve as head nouns as easily as
subjects, so you if you explicitly express both subject and
object of a relative clause (a verb with {-bogh}), then you
must indicate which is the head noun with the {-'e'} suffix,
unless an acceptable translation results from either noun
acting as head. This one came close, but ...
> This may be a dumb question, but do verbs with the {-ghach} suffix
> function exactly like nouns?
Questions cannot exhibit stupidity, except through silence,
thereby unnecessarily extending ignorance. Yes. A verb and all
of its verbal suffixes with {-ghach} at the end together
function exactly like a noun, hence the name "nominalizer".
Note, that, like {-wI'}, this apparently does not require a
subject implied by a prefix.
> Can verbs with {-ghach} take noun suffixes?
Yes.
> Are the following sentences the correct usage of the meaning of {-ghach}?
Without the HolQeD article, I cannot answer this with
authority. I will state openly that I do not like these
translations, since they ignore that which is either culturally
or linguistically Klingon and head straight into "plug and
play" translation.
> 'oghtaHghach SoS 'oH poQtaHghach'e'. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Tell me honestly: Do you imagine a Klingon standing in front of
you saying this, either in English or Klingon? "Necessity is
the mother of invention." A Vulcan, yes. A Klingon, no. When I
try to imagine it, I see two Klingons. One says it and the
other hits him to bring him back to his senses.
> Quchqu'taHghach 'oH jIvtaHghach'e'. Ignorance is bliss.
I can see a Klingon pointing to someone and commenting to a
third person:
jIvtaH ghaH 'ej Quchqu'.
I cannot imagine a Klingon making the kind of global generality
so attractive to Humans: Ignorance is bliss.
> yu'pu'ghach a question
I seriously doubt the accuracy of this. If the HolQeD article
makes this acceptable, then I need to study this new language
that Klingon has become. Did we get a new empiror recently? The
use of the perfective has me stumped.
> yu'qu'ta'ghach a severe interrogation
I doubt that this works. The use of the perfective strikes me as
especially puzzling.
> QIptaHghachHeymo' "-ghach" mojaq vIlo'Ha''a'? Am I misusing the suffix
> {-ghach} due to my apparent ongoing stupidity?
This seems especially unnecessary, since {-mo'} is also a
verbal suffix. You could easily say:
jIQIplaw'mo' "-ghach" mojaq vIlo'Ha''a'?
> Different subject: How do you say "about", "concerning", "relating to"
> as in "This book is about targs"?
targhmey buStaH paqvam.
> yoDtargh
charghwI'