tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 29 19:23:33 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: KLBC: Sufix #9 ghach



jatlh Edy Fonseca:

> > > And about the Suffix #9 << ghach >> wich is not so clear for me yet.

> > Well, if you've got it, I refer you to HolQeD 3:3 and 3:4, which discuss
> > much
> > on {-ghach

> 	Is it in Gramarian Desk of Capt. Krankor (pg 69-81)?

I don't have that; I cannot tell you the page numbers.

>         I took a look there, but I still having some doubts. How can I say:
> 
> The virtue and knowledge walk together. (Socrates)
> (tay' yIt ghob SovtaHghach je)(?)   I'm not sure about SovtaHghach,
> Sovghach or anything else!  :(

You don't *need* {-chach} here!  We have the noun {Sov} "knowledge."  Now, if 
you wanted to take the noun {Sov}, but mean "absolutely perfect and complete 
knowledge," you'd start with the *verb* {Sov}, add {-chu'} to get {Sovchu'} 
"knows perfectly," then {-ghach} it to include {-chu'} into the new meaning.  
{Sovchu'ghach} "perfect knowledge."

It is my opinion that this adding additional meaning to nouns is what {-ghach} 
is really intended for.  It's not just there to make instant nouns.

That part is done, but there's the rest of your sentence to consider.

> tay' yIt ghob Sov je

If you're trying to say "They walk together," you have to first realize that 
there is no adverbial for "together."  (There's "alone," {nIteb}, and one must 
wonder if we can add {-Ha'} to this to mean "not alone."  Still, this isn't 
exactly what we mean, anyway.)

You must use two verbs, {tay'} "be together," and {yIt} "walk."  What's the 
main action?  It's the walking.  Well, then, {yIt ghob Sov je} "virtue and 
knowledge walk."  But they have to do it together!  How do we get another verb 
in there?

The answer lies in TKD section 6.  It explains many of the verbal clauses 
which one may use.  These allow the sentence to contain a main verb, but also 
another verb for use in other capacities.  Here, for instance, we'll do the 
following with a subordinate clause:

tay'taHvIS ghob Sov je
while virtue and knowledge are together

As you read in section 6, subordinate clauses can go on either side of the 
main verb.  In this case, we've got:

tay'taHvIS ghob Sov je yIt ghob Sov je
or
yIt ghob Sov je tay'taHvIS ghob Sov je
Virtue and knowledge walk while virtue and knowledge are together.

These, of course, can be shortened by dropping the redundant nouns:

yIt ghob Sov je tay'taHvIS.
Virtue and knowledge walk while they are together.

A better translation in English is, of course, "Virtue and knowledge walk 
together."  You might even consider saying

yIttaH ghob Sov je tay'taHvIS,

since they don't just walk once, but walk continuously.

Now, this is the grammatical answer.  There's the question of idioms, though.  
This statement is an idiom which works in English, and presumably in ancient 
Greek.  I have no idea if Klingons would accept the image of virtue and 
knowledge "walking."

There's a rather simple answer to this solution, in case you want to avoid the 
poetics (I don't think it's a *bad* metaphor; I'm sure Klingons would 
understand it).  You can consider using a different main verb:

tay'taH ghob Sov je.
Virtue and knowledge are together.

One might argue that virtue and knowledge are not capable of being in close 
proximity to each other any more than they are capable of walking, but I'm not 
sure that this level of abstraction is quite as bad.  Again, my opinion.

> 	or as he said:
> 	"Did you receive his payment"?

*shrug*
I don't see why this one is so hard.  {SoHvaD 'oH DIlpu''a' ghaH?}  Or just 
{SoHvaD DIlpu''a'?}

If one chooses to use Klingon as it is presented, rather than trying to use 
nouns where English has nouns, then most sentences are easily recastable.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97409.9


Back to archive top level