tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 11 09:34:51 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lugh'a' mughghachvam?
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: lugh'a' mughghachvam?
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:28:12 -0400
SuStel writes:
>
> >From: Klingon Warrior <[email protected]>
> >So I can't just take a verb like /muS/ (to hate) and add -ghach to it and
> >make the noun "hatred, hate"??? You know, like a sentence saying, "His
> >hate is destroying him."
>
[...]
>
> With more context, we can construct a word. For "His hate is destroying
> him," this is pretty clearly a situation that is ongoing (hating one time
> isn't going to continuously destroy you). Thus,
>
> ghaH Qaw'taH muStaHghachDaj
> His (continual) hatred is destroying him.
>
> You don't absolutely need /-ghach/ for this, though:
>
> muStaHmo' Qaw'lu'taH
> Because he continually hates, he is being destroyed.
>
Indeed. If you're just talking abstractly about grammar, then SuStel's
first example is fine. But, Klingon style (as we have come to understand
it) is heavily oriented towards action, i.e., towards verbs and not
nouns, which makes the second example preferable from the point of style.
English tends to use a lot of abstract nouns, but the more you can
replace those abstract nouns with active verbs in Klingon, the more
"Klingon" your writing will be. This tends to make the lack of nouns
and the issues surrounding the use of {-ghach} a lot less of a
problem.
-- ter'eS
http://www.geocities.com/teresh_2000
http://www.geocities.com/weseb_2000