tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 23 18:17:00 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: -ghach
- From: [email protected] (Old Post Road Orchestra)
- Subject: KLBC: -ghach
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:24:17 -0400
I don't like -ghach. I never use -ghach. I don't really feel confident
anyone knows how it is correctly used. In TKD we see the only canonical
use
of -ghach I've seen.
lo' = make use of (v)/use (n)
lo'laH = be valuable (v)/ lo'laHghach = value (n)
lo'laHbe' - be worthless (v)/lo'laHbe'ghach = worthlessness (n)
naD = commend (v)/commendation (n)
naDHa' = discommend (v)/naDHa'ghach = discommendation (n)
naDqa' = re-commend (v)/naDqa'ghach = re-commendation
In most of these (perhaps all - it may escape my evaluation) the
resulting
*-ghach* noun bears the same relationship to the suffixed verb as the
homonous noun and verb. Is it safe to assume that this is a trend that is
'regular'?
exs. Qob = be dangerous (v)/danger (n)
QobHa' = be safe / QobHa'ghach = safety (n)??
DuH = be possible (v)/possibility (n)
DuHqa' = be again possible (v) / DuHqa'ghach = renewed possibility (n)
If it's accepted, this helps in one odd problem - there is no noun *bIr*
to
match to the verb/noun combo tuj. But we could use tujHa'ghach...
*nep*, too, is a verb-only word - but the noun "falsehood" could be
vIpHa'ghach...
How about chav = achieve (v)/achievement (n)
chavlaH = be able to achieve(v)/chavlaHghach = potential (n)???
I still don't like -ghach - but in time, I may learn to live it.
Qermaq