tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 21 01:45:30 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qama'
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.990320181651.6129A-
[email protected]>, david joslyn <[email protected]>
writes
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Matt Johnson wrote:
>> I don't think you can say "mumblings" without a {-ghach} nominalizer,
>> which it is generally wise to avoid. Perhaps something like ?{mu'meyDaj
>> wIyajbe'laHbogh} -- his words which we couldn't understand.
>
>Whoa, back the horse up there cowpoke! tlhIngan Hol has a nominalizer?
>What is its order among the suffixes. How is it used? Can you give me
>canon examples? And why was I not INFORMED of this fact?
-ghach is a nominalizer, and is VS9, but we tend to say that it also
requires a VS7 for the word to make any sense. vb+ghach without VS7 is a
"marked" usage, is very weird indeed, and not well-liked. TKD Addendum,
p176 gives canon examples. However, as DloraH has said, you REALLY don't
want to use it. I don't think I've /ever/ used a word with -ghach, and I
intend it to stay that way. ;-)
>> Uh-oh, that looks like it could fall into the "the ship in which I fled"
>> category... (}}:-<)
>
>I think I missed that "discussion" (argument-ed.)
Section 3.6 in the list FAQ gives a good description...
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
Regards,
--
qonwI'
--
Matt Johnson <mailto:[email protected]>