tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 11 07:16:26 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -ghach (oh no)
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -ghach (oh no)
- Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 07:13:17 -0700
At 03:49 98-05-11 -0700, qelayn wrote:
}
}I don't know why people have such a problem using -ghach. I went from
}first principles (naDHa'ghach) and worked out that it means...
}
}The act of <verb>ing - <verb>ghach
}
}This works for any verb that makes sense in this context.
}
}eg. naDHa'ghach - The act of discommending (a discommendation)
}
}I hope this helps some people and doesn't annoy too many others.
The problem may predate you, qelayn. Depending on when you came in, there
was no <-ghach>, then there was rampant <-ghach> use to make a noun out of
anything, coupled with gradually increasing arguments about whether we could
do this, and then there was the explanation from Okrand about avoiding bare
verbs. The suffix <-ghach> is mainly a problem when newcomers to the
language try to use it to continue writing in a noun-dependent way, instead
of switching to Klingon. That we haven't quite got it yet was brought home
to me when someone asked another BG and me for help translating a motto
including the word "value." We *both* balked at {lo'laHghach} for "value"
until it was pointed out that that was the first example from TKD!
Admittedly, {lo'laH} is a weird one, becaue it changes meaning more than
average when it gets that first suffix.
And, it's got to be said, while I agree it seems that the nominalization of
a process is what's happening, that *isn't* what Okrand has said.
Qov [email protected]
Now on ICQ: 12235599