tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 06 20:16:38 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-bogh} vs {-meH}
On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Chester Braun wrote:
> Alan Anderson wrote:
> >
> > ghItlh SuStel:
> > >I suppose you are technically correct, but I find {ghormeH taj} to be
> > >inferior to {ghorbogh taj}. Why complicate matters with -{meH}?
> >
> > It's the difference between identifying the knife by what it does
> > and identifying the knife by what it is for. One can use a steak
> > knife to jimmy a lock, but it's still a {Ha'DIbaH pe'meH taj}.
> > Okay, it's now a {lojmIt poSmoHbogh taj}, but that's not its *name*
> > or its *purpose*, that's only what it *did*. One can misuse almost
> > any tool; the common screwdriver can accomplish more tasks than its
> > inventor ever dreamed of, but it remains a "tool for driving screws."
> > In the case of an "axe", it's not just any "knife which breaks" (*).
> > It's a tool whose *purpose* is to chop wood.
But {lojmIt poSmoHbogh taj'e'} can be a name, just as {qeylIS'e'
lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'} is a name. Relative clauses as a unit, are
essentially nouns (Sec. 6.2.3) whereas {-meH} constructions are verb
phrases. My opinion is that nouns make better names than verb phrases if
you were deliberately making a name which actually meant something.
> So, as a name gormeH taj is OK? Even preferable?
(What the spelling: it's {ghormeH taj}.)
{ghormeH taj} (a knife, in order to break) is a purpose clause, not a
noun construction. As such, it is a phrase which you would normally
encounter in the context of being a phrase within a sentence. Therefore,
I don't think "a knife, in order to break" makes a very good name.
> > (*) The transitivity issue nabs us here, too. Is {ghor} transitive?
> > If not, a {ghorbogh taj} would be inferior merchandise :-), and a
> > {ghormeH taj} would be worthless except as a stage prop. Then again,
> > maybe it could be an assassin's weapon, intended to remain in the
> > victim's body.
My feeling is that {ghor} is indeed transitive. I think that {taj'e'
ghorlaHbogh vay'} would be the way you would refer to an inferior knife.
> BTW, as a name can it be run together as in: HomghormeHtaj ?
There are no specific rules for creating names and your name does not
really need to be grammatical, in fact your name does not have to mean
anything at all. However, it's been my observation that all canon
Klingon names are only one or two syllables long, so {HomghormeHtaj}
looks rather wordy to me. But if the name was shorter, say {Homghor} or
{ghortaj}, I think either would make fine Klingon names. (Personally,
I like the sound of {ghortaj}.) There's one member of the list whose name
is simply {ghor} (I think it's the translation of his Finnish name).
> QetaH
> (Chet Braun)
yoDtargh