tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 06 06:00:03 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: mughmey

[I'll be discussing uncertain grammatical issues here, so I removed 
the KLBC from the subject.]

SuStel writes:
>As a side-note, you technically "can" add {-ghach} to a verb with no suffixes,
>although then it becomes a term which stands out as very funny looking; it's
>called "marked" usage.  

Right.  If you're not absolutely sure that the attention-getting usage
is really what you want, avoid {-ghach} on bare verbs.  It's a little
like using the general-plural suffix {-mey} on a body part.  It can be
done, but it's usually done for effect as much as for meaning.

>But suppose I used the word {mughlI'ghach}.  The
>resultant noun of a {-ghach}'ed verb is the *process* of doing the action, or
>the *state* of being the quality.  

This might not be true in all cases.  For example, the interview in 
HolQeD considers the example {nobta'ghach}, calling it a "given", not
"having given".  English has a parallel with the gerund suffix "-ing":
usually, a verb+ing refers to the action, but occasionally it instead
can be the *result* of the action.  The comedian Gallagher points out
that the word "building" (structure) doesn't fit the standard mold, 
and it might make more sense if we called it a "built". :-)

>So, {mughlI'ghach} means "the act of
>translating (with a known stopping point)," and {QuchtaHghach} means
>"continued happiness."  If you haven't, read over Okrand's intervies in HolQeD
>3:3, and Krankor's review of this interview in HolQeD 3:4.

I'm quite willing to agree that {-ghach} can always be translated to 
refer to the state or action, but it might sometimes be able to refer 
to the outcome of a process as well.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level