tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 08 20:13:03 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: jIyajbe'
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: jIyajbe'
- Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:14:02 -0400
At 08:11 AM 8/31/96 -0700, Alan Anderson wrote:
>>>What about <ghach>? I have seen some confusion on when and how this
>>>can/should be used. According to my TKD, it would appear that it can only
>>>be used when the verb has a suffix. ie: <naDHa'ghach> for
>>>"discommendation".
>
>dancat replies:
>>You are mistaken here, {-ghach} can be used on noun without suffixes too...
>
>Pardon my presumption, but I think it's time for some "spin control" here.
>
>Point #1: the original note was posted under the KLBC header. *PLEASE*
>let the Beginners' Grammarian answer before giving your comments. This
>rule is supposed to keep the possibility of confusion to a minimum, and
>leads me to...
>
>Point #2: dancat's response is, to put it mildly, incorrect. To begin
>with, {-ghach} is a *verb* suffix, and is *never* placed on a noun,
>suffixes or no suffixes. As to the original question:
qatlho'qu'neS, *ghunchu'wI'*
Of course the previous BGs all understand my frustration with this on-going
problem... (which WILL stop, if I have to shake every tlhInganna' on the
list to do it...!)
>>TKD page 176 4.2.9. "...as nouns, but it is know that verbs ending in
>>suffixes (...) can never be nouns. The Type 9 suffix {-ghach}, however, can
>>be added to such verbs in order to form nouns." This piece of text doesn't
>>have the words "...can only be added to..." in it, thusly my interpretation
>>has always been that if a verb had no noun counterpart, that was known, one
>>could, only as distinguished noun, highlight it with the Type 9 suffix
>>{-ghach}.
>
>This used to be Captain Krankor's interpretation also (HolQeD 3:1, pp. 8-9),
>but we now know differently. Marc Okrand explained {-ghach} clearly in an
>interview (HolQeD 3:3, pp. 10-13). To the question "Can we use the suffix
>{-ghach} on a naked stem?" he replied "The general answer to that is 'no.'"
>It's not entirely ungrammatical, but it's going to call a lot of attention
>to the word and people are going to say "that's a unique formation" and be
>distracted from the intended meaning.
Hm. Mebby I didn't read far enough in the article when I answered this
post. I understood it to be "it's allowed, but it isn't used commonly--a
last ditch effort".
[...]
>>>According to TKD, and what I've seen here <ghunghach> is illegal.
>>
>>You must have a different TKD than I do...
>
>dancat apparently has to pay more attention to "what I've seen here" as well.
>The proper use of {-ghach} has been explained in detail, and shouldn't have
>to be a perennial argument.
With this, I agree fully.
Unfortunately, since -ghach was explained in a _HolQeD_ article, and many
new speakers don't get them, perhaps a summary could be included in the FAQ?
That's what it is there for, isn't it?
--tQ
---
HoD trI'Qal, tlhIngan wo' Duj lIy So' ra'wI'
Captain T'rkal, Commander IKV Hidden Comet (Klingon speaker and net junkie!)
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH... qatlh HaghtaH Qanqor HoD???
monlI'bogh tlhInganbe' yIvoqQo'! SoHvaD monlI' trI'Qal...