tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 21 10:10:21 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: {-ghach} (was Re: qama')
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Matt Johnson wrote:
> 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...
> >
> >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. ;-)
Okay, I understand that, as a people, Klingons are very action and goal
oriented, and that there language reflects that fact. Thus, I understand -
at least in part - the hesitaion felt by others to nominalize Klingon
verbs. But are not brevity and directness also halmarks of {tlhIngan
Hol}? Why would a Klingon say:
{jIHvaD bel nobtaH wam}-or-
{bel munobtaH wam} "To hunt gives me pleasure"
{mubeltaH wam} "To hunt pleases me /It pleases me to hunt"
{jIwam(taH)meH jIbel} "Because I hunt (am hunting), I am pleased"
{mubelmoH chon} "The hunt pleases me"
{jIHvaD bel nob chon}-or-
{bel munob chon} "The hunt gives me pleasure"
When what he means is
{mubelmoH wamtaHghach} "Hunting pleases me"
{bel munob wamtaHghach} "Hunting give me pleasure"
?????
quljIb