tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 23 10:39:51 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: -bogh and -ghach

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:23:44 -0800 (PST) wrote:

> I have two questions about -bogh and -ghach.
> 1. How does Soj vutlu'pu'bogh become the food which has been cooked?  The
> subject and object aspect of -bogh is what is confusing me, and not
> necessarily just this example.

The head noun of {-bogh} can be either that verb's subject or 
object. Most relative clauses only have an explicit subject OR 
an explicit object, so you can assume that noun is the head 
noun. When a relative clause has both an explicit subject AND an 
explicit object, you can just leave it ambiguous, since Okrand 
certainly has given us examples where that was the case, or you 
can point out which noun is the head noun by adding the 
suffix {-'e'} to it.

In {Soj vutlu'pu'bogh}, there is only one noun there. {Soj} has 
to be the head noun of the clause. It is the object of {vut}. 
So, it has to be "food which is cooked" or "food which one has 
cooked" or something like that, but the point is, it is the head 
noun, and it is the object.

What do we mean by "head noun"?

Well, if you dropped the rest of the clause and just used that 
head noun alone, the rest of the sentence would make sense. So, 
if we had a more complete example:

Soj vutlu'pu'bogh vIneH.

We could drop the rest of the relative clause and get:

Soj vIneH.

The rest of the clause just gives a more specific definition of 
WHICH food I want. That's one of the two functions of a relative 
clause. In English, we have two types. The exclusive relative 
clause performs this function of defining which noun you are 
talking about. "I saw the child who hit the captain." Which 
child? The one who hit the captain.

There's also the parenthetical relative clause. That just adds 
some information about the noun, but it is not really important 
in identifying the noun. "I saw the child, who hit the captain." 
That simple comma in English is supposed to imply that I saw the 
kid you were talking about, and you know what? That SAME kid hit 
the captain. I'm not identifying the child. I'm just giving 
parenthetical information about the child.

In "proper" English, if the noun in question is neuter, we also 
make a difference by using "which" or "that".

I saw the robot that hit the captain. (exclusive)

I saw the robot, which hit the captain. (parenthetical)

Does this help?
> 2. How should -ghach be translated?  We have naDHa'ghach - dicommendation, so
> can I assume that naQHa'ghach means incompletion?  [It is probably easier
> though, to use DanaQHa'chugh, though]
{-ghach} is a good candidate for "last suffix you should bother 
learning". Get to know every other suffix in the language before 
bothering with {-ghach} and you'll be a happier Klingon.

{naQHa'ghach} would be something like disintegration or 
dysfunctional formation. The suffix {-Ha'} implies either the 
reversal of an earlier state (like {naDHa'} removes a previous 
commendation), or it implies that something is done poorly, 
(like {yajHa'} is not simply not understanding, it is 
MISunderstanding). So the completeness is either undone or it 
was poorly done in the first place. "Disunity", perhaps?

In general, {-ghach} turns a verb into a noun and uses other 
verb suffixes to help describe the aspect of the action of the 
verb which is to be used to determine what kind of noun that 
verb will be turned into.

I'm guessing at/making up definitions here so they are not 
official, though I think most people would probably accept most 
of them with only a LITTLE angst.

naDchoHghach = The transition to commendation; the transitional 

naDtaHghach = The endurance/continuity of commendation, like a 
"lifetime achievement award"

naDHa'ghach = discommendation

naD'eghghach = vanity based upon one's overzealous appraisal of 
one's own achievements

naDchuqghach = The exchange of commendations

naDta'ghach = The accomplishment of commendation

Meanwhile, most of these are fairly ugly terms that are easily 
avoided by using the language as it was designed to be used, 
with action speaking loudest through words and nouns serving 
just to identify the players in a word that DOES stuff. The 
DOING is the focus. 

> T'Lod

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level