tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 03 07:54:51 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Do you put out for chocolate?
>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 07:43:54 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>"Mark E. Shoulson" writes:
> > >this wasn't acceptable. As was the attempt to use bang as the noun
> > >'love' instead of 'one who is loved, beloved.' (Glen Prochel aparently
> > >did these translations, go figure.) My attempt is:
> >
> > Naw, Glen uses "bang" for abstract love and doesn't put -ghach on bare
> > verbs (he just uses the verb-stems as nouns, freely).
>Well, whatever heinous crimes Glen is condemned for and convicted of
>in absentia, I'd note that in every class of his that I have attended,
>"bang" was only used as "one who is loved" and for the verb he used
>muSHa'.
Now, now. I'm not accusing him of anything I didn't hear from him. I
never said that he used "bang" as a verb, and I don't believe that he
does. I don't think he wants to or needs to. I said he used "bang" for
abstract love, i.e. the *noun* "love" as an abstract concept and not just
"beloved." And I say this because he told me he thinks it means that, on
the phone once (I think).
Just so long as we're worrying about people being accused of stuff they
didn't do, I wanted to set the record straight on what I said.
> And, despite defending the foul bare-stem practice in his New
>Testament intro, he didn't perpetrate that particular crime in the
>actual text (at least, the last time we spoke was adamant that he had
>not - I haven't examined every jot and tittle).
I haven't either... but he was the first and most vehement to argue
(correctly) against -ghach on a bare stem and in favor of verbs as nouns,
so it's REALLY unlikely that he would have produced "ngaghghach". He'd
have done "ngaghtaHghach" or possibly "ngagh" (hmm. I don't think he'd use
plain "ngagh"; I think he does put some thought into using verbs as nouns
and tries to do it when it's pretty plain that we're dealing with a gerund
or abstract noun, and "mating" is probably a less-than-obvious abstract
noun).
~mark