tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 16 10:43:13 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -lu'wI' and -lu'ghach
I'm combining two threads together since they concern related questions.
01/13/2000, jenwI' wrote:
>I was thinking... when we want to make a noun that reflects a verb we can
>use -wI', but this only works if the thing is the subject of the verb. Is
>there a way to do this with the object> (e.g. in English there is the
>distinctions between Payer [DIlwI'] and Payee [DIl-???])
Instead of {-wI'}, you could use {-bogh}:
X DIlbogh ghot "payer" (person who pays for X)
ghot DIlbogh X "payee" (person for whom X pays)
if the object of {DIl} "pay for" can be a person. As Okrand uses it, the
object of {DIl} is the thing paid for, not the person being paid (or on
whose behalf you're paying):
DaH yIDIl
Pay now! [i.e. "Pay for it now!"] TKD
Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH
How much do you want for that? TKD
Soj yIDIl!
Pay for the food! KGT
{DIl} can also be used intransitively, without an object:
bIDIlbe'chugh vaj bIHegh
Pay or die! TKD
01/16/2000, DujHoD wrote:
: What would be the meaning of the verb suffix -lu' plus the suffix -wI'
: or -ghach, to change it to a noun? For example:
: HIvlu'wI'
: [snip]
: My best guesses for translation are "attackee" (i.e., one who is attacked)
*{-lu'wI'} has been suggested and occasionally used by others on this list
and in various translation projects of the KLI. I only have just two
examples in my notes:
*{chellu'wI'} addendum, appendix (Qov) < {chel} "add"
*{ngoHlu'wI'} the Christ (i.e. the anointed one") KBTP < {ngoH} "smear"
Note that Okrand has never used or approved this form AFAIK, but I would
think you would certainly be understood, though be prepared for some
whining from the peanut gallery.
: HIvlu'ghach
: and "act of being attacked," respectively.
{-lu'ghach}, however, is perfectly kosher. We know that there must be some
suffix between {-ghach} and the verb, so there's no reason you can't use
{-lu'}. He introduced {-ghach} in TKD (p.176):
"In Klingon, there are many instances of nouns and verbs being
identical in form... 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."
and listed some examples:
lo'laHghach "value"
lo'laHbe'ghach "worthlessness"
naDHa'ghach "discommendation"
naDqa'ghach "re-commendation"
Okrand further discussed the niceties of {-ghach} 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."
and gave more examples of properly-formed {-ghach} nouns:
tlhutlhtaHghach "ongoing drinking"
nobtaHghach "ongoing giving"
nobpu'ghach "a given (a finished case of giving)"
quvmoHghach "process of honoring"
belpu'ghach "having been pleased"
We know of another one from TKW:
quvHa'ghach "dishonor"
Okrand has never used {-lu'ghach} himself, but {-ghach} nouns are *very*
rare in Klingon anyway. Most of his examples, in fact, are just
that--examples. AFAIK {quvHa'ghach} is the only one he's ever used in a
sentence.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons