tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 11 07:16:12 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Tasty, nice ... etc
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Tasty, nice ... etc
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Consulat General de Pologne" at Apr 10, 96 03:34:03 pm
According to Consulat General de Pologne:
>
> > >Heghpu'lu'ghachveD QaQ DaHjaj
>
> > The {-lu'} suffix has to come before {-taH} or {-pu'} or {-lI'} or {-ta'}.
> > You're starting to get bogged down in the mechanics of meaning, to the
> > point where the meaning itself gets lost in the shuffle. What is your
> > suggestion of {Heghlu'pu'ghach} supposed to mean?
>
> Heghlu'pu'ghach: One's (indefinete subject's) having died.
> Heghlu'ta'ghach: One's (indefinete subject's) purposedly having died.
> Heghlu'taHghach: One's dying.
> Heghlu'lI'ghach: One's intended dying.
>
> But I agree that it might sometimes seem too complicated without reason.
Worse than that, in Okrand's comments on the use of {-ghach} he
specifically said that it would be very strange to have a
verbal prefix on a verb nominalized by {-ghach}. Meanwhile,
{-lu'} has a function very similar to a prefix, giving
information about the subject of the verb. Meanwhile, your
definitions seem to be attempting to convey a sense of
possession, which would be better handled by a noun suffix
after {-ghach}, like {HeghlI'ghachDaj} - his process of dying;
the duration of his approach to death.
If it is not important to refer to the owner of the death, then
you don't need {-lu'}. Just say {HeghlI'ghach}.
> macheq
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |