tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 09 22:18:25 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lugh'a' mughghachvam?
From: "Scott Willis" <[email protected]>
> > <<lugh'a' mughvamghach>> pagh <<lugh'a' mughghachvam>>????
> >
> Neither. Two reasons:
> 1. {ghach} can ONLY be used on verbs with a suffix attached. (It took me
> awhile to fully grok this, too.) So it would have to be something like
> {mughta'ghach}.
> "Translated-ness" or "Translated-ation". (I know, that's an AWFUL
> translation, I just can't think of english words that completely convey my
> meaning.)
You're almost right. /-ghach/ may be used on any verb, but if there is no
verb suffix between the verb and /-ghach/, then the word is marked. This
means the application of the suffix makes sense, but the word is still
wrong. Consider something similar (but not identical) in English:
The suffix "-tion" is used to form nouns that relate to the verb to which it
is attached.
commend (v)
commendation (n) "act of commending."
So, naturally, we should be able to do this, right?:
give (v)
givation (n)
So you're going to run out and start practicing givation, right? No, of
course not. We're applying the rules in a way that just doesn't work. The
closest noun we might be able to get to a legitimate word for "givation" is
probably "giving (n)" (as in, "The giving is more important than the
having").
You could go out and use the word "givation" in context, and people would
understand you, but you'd get a lot of funny looks whenever you used it,
because it's not a real word.
/-ghach/ is similar. Okrand has said that using /-ghach/ on a verb without
an intervening suffix is like adding "-(a)tion" to a word in English when
you know such a word doesn't exist. You could use /mughghach/, but it would
sound to Klingons as bad as "givation" does to us. It's grammatically
correct, but it's not right to say.
As in English, there are times when you might want to intentionally break
the rules. If for some reason you actually wanted to say "givation," you
might double-quote with your fingers as you say it, or something. You'd
need to have a reason to be saying this, though. Likewise, you can
intentionally break the rule with /-ghach/, but it's important to remember
that you're using a marked term. If you imagine yourself double-quoting it
with your fingers Dr. Evil-style, you've got the right idea.
It's acceptable to use /-ghach/ when there's an extra suffix between it and
the verb. Scott has a good word below.
> Therefore, I would go with
> {lugh'a' mughta'ghachvam?}
> Is this translation correct?
>
> po'wI'vaD:
> jIQaghchugh, HIlughmoH!
One last note: overreliance on /-ghach/ is likely indicative of too-strict
translation from English, or other noun-heavy lanauge. Klingon has a lot
more action-oriented sentences; always consider whether you can word it
without /-ghach/. Consider:
jImughchu'ta''a'?
Have I translated perfectly?
SuStel
Stardate 3439.1