tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 10 01:11:25 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lugh'a' mughghachvam?
SuStel, I don't fully understand what you mean. Is there somewhere else I can read and learn about -ghach other than the one paragraph in TKD on page 176 or is that all there is regarding that suffix? What I don't understand about what you're saying is how you've come to the conclusion that a verb suffix is needed on a verb before using the -ghach. In Okrand's example on page 176 of TKD, he says the verb /lo'laH/ (be valuable) can be made the noun value when placing the suffix on it (lo'laHghach). There is no verb suffix in between the verb and -ghach. While reading this paragraph, the only rule really mentioned is that verbs ending in -Ha' cannot have -ghach attached to them. Wait a minute, am I reading this right? Is it saying that though some verbs can also be nouns, linguists know that verbs ending in -Ha' can never be nouns? Instead, to make nouns out of verbs that are not nouns in their identical form, add -ghach? Then how do we account for Okrand's example of the verb "be valuable"? Urrrr, this one paragraph makes no sense! Please continue to explain why a suffix is needed before using -ghach and since -ghach is a Type 9, would a suffix like -vam come before or after -ghach (you know, "this value - /lo'laHghachvam/ or /lo'laHvamghach/?). I still think that having -ghach on the verb /mugh/ still makes the nound "translation." Help me out...
taHjaj wo'!
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).