tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 18 20:01:40 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KBLC: <-taH> and <-ghach> (was Re: typo indeed!)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KBLC: <-taH> and <-ghach> (was Re: typo indeed!)
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 96 02:51:40 UT
December 18, 1996 6:46 PM, jatlh jo'Saq:
> > I'd meant to say tlhIjtaHghachmey
> > tlhIj + taH + ghach + mey
>
> Ah, this makes *much* more sense... "many apologies", as it were.
> However, that brings up another point. Why bother using <-taH> at all if
> you're going to normalize the verb? Does it really add anything to it? I
> would have left it at <tlhIjghachmey>. Comments, BGs?
Once again, I refer you to HolQeD 2:3 and 2:4, in which the nature of {-ghach}
is discussed with Marc Okrand, and analyzed by Captain Krankor.
Simply put, {-ghach} is funny-looking to a Klingon when used without another
suffix between itself and the verb. It is not grammatically incorrect, it is
only used in highly technical or descriptive phrases. It should not be used
in everyday speech. Marc Okrand's example is {nob}. Saying {nobghach} would
be rather like saying "givation." It makes sense, but it's not a
normal-looking word. Whereas {nobtaHghach} would mean "ongoing giving."
One problem with this is that people who are trying to translate an English
sentence word-for-word (or as close as possible) will often want to use
{-ghach}. Instant noun! The problem is, since you can't just use {-ghach} by
itself, some people like to add {-taH} just to have a suffix in there. The
{-taH} may not mean much, but it makes the word look "normal."
I am usually very critical of {-taHghach}, until I see that it really has been
used correctly. In the case of {tlhIjtaHghach}, I don't see that {-taH} is
very useful here, unless the poster really did mean "continuous apologizing."
(C'mon, be truthful: did you really have this in mind?)
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96966.8