tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 29 04:49:15 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jabbI'IDwIj wa'DIch

In a message dated 95-11-27 11:34:27 EST, you write:

>Yeah, in Esperanto.  I think it's a cheap trick in Klingon.  Why not
>Suqqu'ghach?  I don't trust meaningless suffixes on verbs put there solely
>so you can use -ghach.  If a suffix doesn't belong, it shouldn't be there.

Hear, hear!  I have not read the HolQeD article on -{ghach}, but it always
seemed to me to simply be an extension of meaning of nouns which are
*already* verbs.

eg: One can swear {'Ip} (v), and when one swears, it is an oath {'Ip} (n).
 This vocabulary has been *given* to us in TKD.  The two words are related to
each other.  Now, one might need to add a suffix or two to {'Ip}.  If so, the
meaning subtly alters, and the noun which is related to it can undergo a
similar change.  Since you can't add a verb suffix to a noun, the -{ghach}
bit keeps its "nounness."  And since you haven't added any suffix onto just
plain {'Ip}, there's no need to give it the -{ghach} tag.  {'Ipghach} would
just mean {'Ip}.  But if you wanted to talk about, say, breaking an oath (or
maybe releasing someone from an oath), you could use the verb {'IpHa'}, and
the act of doing this would be {'IpHa'ghach}.

What do you think of this interpretation?  How does it compare with HolQeD
and Okrand's sacred words?  Also, I picked {'Ip} totally at random
(intentionally); what do you think of my interpretation of {'IpHa'} = break
an oath (v)?

SuStel
Hovjaj 95909.5

Back to archive top level