tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 03 21:09:08 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC - hello and questions

ghItlh yoDtargh:
>{-ghach} is a tricky suffix and it's use hasn't been fully explained to us.
>Generally, it creates nouns from verb stems, but it isn't normally used
>with only a verb stem, other verb suffixes like Type 7 aspect suffixes
>are used with it.  E.g. {jatlhtaHghach} (the ongoing process of speaking;
>"speech", "talking"), {jatlhta'ghach} (a single, deliberate act of
>speaking, "an utterance")

So {jatlhbe'ghach} would be the act of "not-talking"?  A useful word
for poetry, perhaps.  Meanwhile, let's not unduly promote the use of
{-ghach}.  It's there for when we NEED it; it's a dangerous crutch for
beginners.

>> ghormeH vaj   is my attempt at an equivalent of an ax...
>This says, "the warrior, in order to break..."  Note that {-meH} is a
>verb suffix, which means "in order to" and it is only used to create
>clauses with a sentence.
>E.g. lojmIt vIghormeH DaSwIj vIlo'ta'. (In order to break the door, I used
>my boot;  I used my boot to break the door.)

TKD section 6.2.4 does give special attention to {-meH}, pointing out
that a purpose clause can describe nouns as well as verbs.  Accounting
for the confusion of {taj} and {vaj}, {ghormeH taj} does mean something
like "knife [which is used] for breaking".

>I can't really think of a good way to say, "axe".  Perhaps you can get by
>with {Sur pe'bogh jan ruQ'e'} (manual device which cuts trees) for a
>timber axe (unfortunately, this could just as easily describe a saw).
>If you want to describe a weapon, such as a battle-axe, you might get by with
>vaguely worded {pe'bogh nuH tIn} (large cutting weapon).

If it's a wodcutters' axe, I suggest {Sur chopwI'} "tree biter". :-)
What would I use a battle axe for?  Ah, it's a {DeS chevwI'}!
Watch out for "translations" like these, though.  Unless you already
know what I mean, you certainly wouldn't understand "arm separator" as
"battle axe", would you?  {DeS chevmeH nuH} is only a little better.

>Of course these are only coursory discriptions, if I wanted to describe
>an axe fully, I would write a long paragraph to describe the item in detail.

Of course.  My concise descriptions are useless for someone who doesn't know
what an axe looks like, or how it's used, or why one would use it.  They are
also not appropriate in a context where it's not obvious that I'm trying to
refer to an axe.  If I mentioned that my wife just misplaced the "turner",
I definitely would not expect anyone to understand immediately what I meant.
If I had been discussing my son's desire for fried eggs, my meaning would, I
hope, become obvious.  Context is a magical thing.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level