tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 12 17:06:18 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -ghach (oh no)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -ghach (oh no)
- Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 19:21:44 -0400
From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>: You missed:
[examples from HolQeD 3:3]
>Good point, though these were nonce examples and haven't been used
elsewhere
>or in context in the published books or tapes.
Neither has {lo'laHghach} and {lo'laHbe'ghach}, to my knowledge, yet you
listed them anyway. In any case, I'm not sure what benefit context would
give to these words.
>: belghach "pleasureness" (marked term)
>: nobghach "givation, one-time donation" (marked term)
>: quvghach "honoredness" (marked term)
>
>These "marked terms" without intervening verb suffixes are NOT kosher, any
>more than their marked English "translations". They are merely examples
>Okrand gives of queer-sounding forms that, though morphologically illegal,
>are still more or less understandable by Klingons, at least those with the
>patience to listen to an alien speaking bad Hol.
Not kosher? Meaning what, exactly? As far as I can tell, they are
perfectly valid, marked words. Not perfectly valid normal words. They are
no less examples of {-ghach}'d words than {belpu'ghach} or {nobta'ghach}.
It is simply important to note that they are not *normal* words, and using
them would make your sentence stick out like a sore thumb. As Okrand has
told us, it's not *wrong*, but it's weird. Thus, I feel that these words
deserve to be listed among the examples of {-ghach} words which we have. As
Okrand said, they would have to be appropriate for the occasion, and would
be one-time words, but they're still words for all of that.
Okrand talks about what happens if you add {-ghach} to a verb without
suffixes. He doesn't talk about this to rule out the possibility, he talks
about it to explain what it would mean.
SuStel
Stardate 98362.7