tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 24 08:22:18 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: -ghach

[email protected] on behalf of Old Post Road Orchestra 

Huh?

wrote:

> 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'?

I once postulated this myself, and thought it was quite a nice interpretation. 
 If you're saying the same thing I was (it's too late for me to think that 
technically), you're saying that {-ghach} would only be used on a verb which 
has an analogous noun.  Thus {Qong} "sleep (v)," which doesn't have a noun 
counterpart, couldn't be used with {-ghach}.

I always thought this was a marvellous way to explain why {-ghach} seems so 
weird.

It's *almost* (but not quite) borne out in canon.

In the interview with Marc Okrand in HolQeD 3:3, we get some more information 
on {-ghach}:

tlhutlhtaHghach
ongoing drinking

We have no noun {tlhutlh}.  Indeed, it cannot mean "drink (n)," as there is 
"no known noun referring to drinks in general" (KGT p. 94).  So 
{tlhutlhtaHghach} doesn't seem to be bringing a verb back to the original 
nouns form with the suffix' meaning.  (Unless there's a noun which hasn't been 
discovered yet, {tlhutlh} "process of drinking.")

By the way, Okrand says he's never heard a Klingon say {tlhutlhghach}.  He 
doesn't say whether this is grammatically correct or not.

We've also got

belghach
nobghach

While marked, these two are still grammatically correct, and mean something 
like "pleasureness" and "givation," respectively.

Other canonized {-ghach} words:

nobtaHghach
Ongoing giving

nobpu'ghach
A [thing which has been] given.

quvmoHghach
process of honoring

quvghach
honoredness

nobta'ghach
a [thing which has been] given (intentionally).

belpu'ghach
having been pleased

The really irritating part about all of this is that every {-ghach}'ed verb 
Okrand has used has a noun counterpart *except {tlhutlh}*.  Krankor would love 
that.


> exs. Qob = be dangerous (v)/danger (n)
> QobHa' = be safe / QobHa'ghach = safety (n)??

Probably.

> DuH = be possible (v)/possibility (n)
> DuHqa' = be again possible (v) / DuHqa'ghach = renewed possibility (n)

Yup.

> 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...

I didn't know {tuj} was a noun!  Wow!

> *nep*, too, is a verb-only word - but the noun "falsehood" could be
> vIpHa'ghach...

You mean {vItHa'ghach}.  But I think this would mean "a lying," "the act of 
lying."

> How about chav = achieve (v)/achievement (n)
> chavlaH = be able to achieve(v)/chavlaHghach = potential (n)???

Nice one.

I've learned to accept the occasional, but still rare, use of {-ghach} on just 
about any verb, though I still like the "return it to the noun it used to be" 
idea.

In my <yIH ghupbogh be' qan>, I intentionally used {-ghach} when it really 
wasn't needed (I was writing a nonsense song, and I just HAD to put {-ghach} 
in there somewhere):

vIng Qa'Hom mach
qaS ghupta'ghach

That's not to say I think there's a noun {ghup}.

-- 
SuStel
qoH vuvbe' SuStel
Stardate 97731.2

Back to archive top level