tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 10 10:07:48 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Some more about {-ghach}
According to [email protected]:
>
> I happen to be one of those who disapproves of overuse of {-ghach}. While it
> is difficult to interpret TKD 4.2.9, I believe that {-ghach} should only be
> used to restore the "nounness" of a word which is both a noun and a verb, and
> which has had a verb suffix added onto it. Thus, one could use
> {choHHa'ghach} "restoration", but not {~'IptaHghach} "fatness."
This is an interesting reading of 4.2.9. While I also avoid
{-ghach} whenever convenient (okay, "remotely possible) to do
so, I'm not sure Okrand is explicitly this exclusive. More to
the point, I don't think he has thought it through that much.
He invented {-ghach} as an afterthought to cover his butt in
the face of an unexpected single problem. He wanted the word
"discommendation". That is the only reason he created {-ghach}.
He wanted that one word. He wanted it immediately and he didn't
want to think a whole lot about the consequences.
And so, he hasn't. He has offered little clarity on how to use
the beast. The one interview we have on the topic in HolQeD
simply proves that it is a messy business which has a very few
clearly right uses and a great many weird and obscure uses
which can be easily misinterpreted.
I'll consider your list and appreciate the work that you have
put into it, but I'm not at all sure that Okrand would agree
with your criteria for inclusion at all. I suspect that ANY
verb with {-Ha'} on it is ripe for {-ghach}, whether or not the
root exists also as a noun. Meanwhile, if you then want to use
the root meaning as a noun, things get weird.
I personally then find it attractive to recast in some way to
avoid building a noun out of a verb, whether or not that verb
is on your list.
charghwI'
Oops. My editor ate your sig.