tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 02 21:59:20 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -ghach
ja' Qermaq:
>My guess (read it again - GUESS) is that since the special verb <lo'laH>
>looks like a verb plus suffix, it's OK to use <-ghach>. Not that I will
>condone this usage - I really see it as one more reason to avoid this
>construction entirely until such a point that we understand what we're doing
>with it.
That's how I think of it as well. Not so much that it's *officially* okay
to put a {-ghach} on the unusual two-syllable verb {lo'laH}, but that it's
just the way the language has come to be because it *feels* okay. (I also
think something like that might be at work with the placement of adverbials
on the second verb of a sentence as object construction.)
><whine>
>When do we find a reason to use <lo'laHghach> anyway? <lo'laHghach ghaj 'oH>
>is, bluntly, crap compared to <lo'laH 'oH> (It is valuable) and I personally
>prefer something better, though I have no clue what. I just hate the
><lo'laH> situation, but it is Klingon.
></whine>
{-ghach} works well if you absolutely *must* talk about an action or quality
as the subject of a sentence. {Huch lI'moH lo'laHghach}
>vIngDI' tlhIngan SuvwI', ghu' cherghlaH pagh net Sov.
vIngDI' tlhIngan SuvwI'qoq, qImHa' tlhIngan SuvwI'na'.
-- ghunchu'wI'