tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 11 17:32:56 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -ghach (oh no)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -ghach (oh no)
- Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:50:05 -0400
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>Okrand had a special problem when he needed the word
>"discommendation". He had a closely related verb, {naD}, and no
>other related word to make a noun out of. {naDHa'} clearly
>means to "discommend", but with the verb suffix, it looks too
>much like a verb to be used as a noun.
I don't think this is exactly what happened, because {naD} is in the
Addendum just as {naDHa'} and {naDHa'ghach} are. It seems he made them at
the same time. He could have simply made up a new noun, but decided,
apparently arbitrarily, to go the long way round.
>Another favorite case in point of mine is the use of {rIntaH}
>slapped on the end of a sentence in order to accomplish the
>same function as the suffix {-pu'}, except, perhaps, a little
>more forcefully. Well, that was used by Okrand exactly once.
Once in context, three times in all.
qa'vam De' vIje' rIntaH.
I have purchased the Genesis data. (Star Trek III)
luHoH rIntaH
They have killed him/her (TKD 41)
vIje' rIntaH
I have purchased it (TKD 41)
In fact, we have no way at all to determine whether {rIntaH} comes after the
*verb* or the *sentence*. We only have examples where the verb *is* the
sentence (perhaps with an object), which doesn't tell us anything.
And {rIntaH} is a more forceful version of {-ta'}, not {-pu'}.
>bejlu'ghach - the state of being watched
Ick. If {-ghach} does indeed nominalize the word with the meaning of the
suffix, then {bejlu'ghach} is something like "subjectless watching." You
may interpret that to mean "the state of being watched," but I am not
willing to make that leap. Unless we see more evidence on this subject,
{bejlu'ghach} will seem to me as valid as {yIbejlu'} or {bejlu'wI'}.
SuStel
Stardate 98359.9