tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 04 11:35:46 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Comments sought on Klingon poem

Christopher Doty (suomichris@gmail.com)



On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:22, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> 'ISqu' translated this as "blackation" to evoke the marked sense that
> the Klingon word {qIjghach} has. {-ghach} is not usually supposed to
> appear on a verb without an intervening suffix. A speaker only does so
> for effect: the equivalent of coining a word you know isn't legitimate
> and making air quotes while you say it. Okrand goes into detail about
> this in an issue of HolQeD.
>
> Whether poetic license would allow use of this device whenever you feel
> like it is best left up to Klingon poets. I can only imagine that one
> should restrain oneself.

I realize this. I was simply saying that, based on what Okrand said (I
presume this is from the HolQeD bit you were talking about):

Z: Just to be clear, you're saying that if it is a stative verb with
–ghach that you are creating a –ness equivalent in English? And if
it's a more active or transitive verb you're creating a –tion type of
noun?
MO: Yes. 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.

I simply mean that "blackation" seems to imply that there is an
activity implied, a "blackening," which isn't what I intended.  If I
were coining a word which "works" but is marked and weird for
something stative, I'd prefer something like "blackitude" or
"blackiness" that have the stative sense.

Should have clarified why I didn't like "blackation," I guess.

Based on my rereading of the HolQeD bit from Okrand, how would folks
feel about: <qIjtaHghach>?






Back to archive top level