tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 22 09:38:39 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: {-ghach} (was Re: qama')
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, William H. Martin wrote:
ja' quljIb:
> > Can you give me a good reason WHY? That's all I want.
>
> I'll give you a couple:
>
> 1. Because most of the time you reach for {-ghach}, you are
> trying too hard to literally translate word for word from
> English to Klingon. English is noun-centric and we overuse a
> couple basic verbs while turning other verbs into nouns. Instead
> of "Answer me," we say, "Give me your answer." We don't just
> walk. We "take a walk". Most of the time, if you find a way to
> use a verb instead of turning it into a noun first, you are
> phrasing something better in Klingon than if you speak Klinglish
> and cram Klingon verbs into noun form.
>
> 2. Because when verbs become nouns, many different things can
> happen to them. It is not always easy to figure out WHICH
> possible noun a verb will become, and so, your message can
> easily become confusing. The nominalizing suffix {-wI'} is not
> so confusing. The person or thing doing the action is the noun.
> But with {-chach}, it could be the process of the action or the
> duration of the action or the product of the action or the
> conduit of the action or the origin of the action or the...
>
> In Klingon, intervening verb suffixes will clue you in to what
> {-ghach} is getting at in terms of what kind of noun you are
> building from the verb. That's why {-ghach} without some other
> verb suffix is so "marked". It is REALLY hard to figure out what
> specific noun you want to build out of the verb without another
> suffix.
>
> In your example, {wamtaHghach} sounds like you enjoy the
> continuation of hunting. You are not really into catching
> anything, since that would end your enjoyment. {wamlI'ghach} may
> have been a better choice, since the hunt has a goal. Or maybe
> you like {wamta'ghach}, the moment standing over the dead prey,
> victorious, or even later when plopping dinner on the kitchen
> table. Still, {chom} is probably a better choice, since it is
> the noun referring to the hunt. It does so better than any
> {wamXghach} could, unless you are trying to point to a
> particular variation on the action of hunting.
>
> In general, {-ghach} is a tenacious beast. It is so difficult to
> use it clearly, yet so beautiful when it is clearly used. I
> consider it to be the LAST affix in the whole language one
> should study. After you believe yourself completely competant at
> using all other affixes, try out {-ghach} and then use it only
> one out of ten times that you are tempted to use it. Maybe less.
>
> I personally use it several times a year. Carefully. If you find
> yourself using it more frequently than that, there is probably
> something about the Klingon language that you are missing.
>
> The action is the important part of a Klingon sentence. That's
> why a well formed verb is a sentence all to itself. Nouns can't
> do that. They only serve to add detail to the action.
>
> Will Martin
> UVA ITC Computer Support Services
Thanks. This clears up a number of questions I had. It also prevents me
from using a "replacement proverb" I came up with in case I couldn't get a
decent answer. Here it is:
{neghDaj DevmeH, vuvchaj ghajnISqu' ra'wI' pagh ra'laHbe'}
To lead his troops, a commander _must_ have their respect or he cannot
command them.
quljIb