tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 28 15:23:46 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: -ghach



Kryntes wrote:

: Can -ghach be used with all verbs?  In TKD one example is lo'lahghach
: (value).  lo'lah doesn't even have a suffix.  It's a verb meaning (be
: valuable). So what it looks like to me is that Okrand took a verb and
: put ghach on the end to make a noun.
: 
: "It is not known if all verbs can be used as nouns, but it is known that
: verbs ending in suffixes (such as -Ha' undo in lobHa' disobey) can never
: be nouns.  The type 9 suffix -ghach, however, can be attached to such
: verbs in order to form nouns."  (TKD p.176)
: 
: That gives me the impression that only verbs ending in certain suffixes
: can take -ghach but like I said, the example Okrand used doesn't have a
: suffix.

Well, yes it does: /-laH/.  In this case, /-ghach/ is attached to the
intervening suffix and not directly to /lo'/.  You're right, however, that
/lo'laH/ "be valuable" is something of a special case in Klingon, but not as
far as /-ghach/ is concerned.  Okrand discussed /lo'laH/ on the Expert Forum
BBS (11/97): 

  "It is a simple verb in its own right (though it's an unusual
  two-syllable one), not the verb /lo'/ use plus Type 5 suffix
  /-laH/ can. It is likely that there is some sort of historical
  connection to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it is just
  that--historical."

Okrand discussed /-ghach/ a bit more in HolQeD 3.3:

  "So /-ghach/ means something like condition of being X, if X is
  stative. Or action or process involved with, or maybe result of
  the action, but the process involved with Y where Y is, for the
  lack of a better term, an active verb." 

Other known /-ghach/ nouns are:

  lo'laHbe'ghach    worthlessness (TKD)
  naDHa'ghach       discommendation (TKD)
  naDqa'ghach       re-commendation (TKD)
  quvHa'ghach       dishonor (TKW)

Okrand gave several more examples of /-ghach/ used correctly in his HolQeD
article: 

 tlhutlhtaHghach  "ongoing drinking"
  nobtaHghach      "ongoing giving",
  nobpu'ghach      "a given (a finished case of giving)"
  quvmoHghach      "process of honoring"
  belpu'ghach      "having been pleased"

Note that these do not correspond to a single word in English.  Okrand also
listed some "marked" terms, or examples of /-ghach/ used incorrectly on the
bare verb, but still understandable - more or less - to native speakers:

 *belghach        "pleasureness"
  *nobghach        "givation, one-time donation" 
  *quvghach        "honoredness".

Also note that his translations are also "marked" in English: the nouns are
incorrectly formed, but understandable - at least to a native speaker.  

: Oh, I don't want pagh to puke when he sees all my KLBCs so I'll open
: this up to anyone. :)

So the short version is:  Only attach /-ghach/ to a verbal suffix - any verbal
suffix - never to the bare verb.  AFAIK, you can do this to all verbs.  But
(you knew there had to be a "but"), based on the corpus it appears that
abstract derived /-ghach/ nouns are VERY rare in Klingon and are used far less
than in a noun-centered language like English.  Use them sparingly, if at
all. 
There is usually a way to recast your sentence without it if you give it a
little thought.  



_________________________________________________________________________
Voragh                            "Grammatici certant et adhuc sub judice
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons      lis est."         Horace (Ars Poetica)



Back to archive top level