tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 15 13:23:34 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-ghach} revisited (yet again!)
- From: Alex Greene <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {-ghach} revisited (yet again!)
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:21:26 +0000 (GMT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s1024; t=1260912086; bh=7cpWoClMPDx84F0URuW2BL6CtPl/+SuPXX78SEnzDa0=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=CCXt55v2iqiOUqNJz6aga33HTXpgNcsiJkuYKyP7h2GYgem6Txrh1jVewLZDnvqqno56J0SW3Na10aVX2RZAY2oToVw+iI8OxC/dYGbqwfgWgddik5f2AvWH1QksXGKG6jS7fv19KhXMKHs8N+H5vlIXXV2y4jgtuHdxAr7ZjVU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Q/aYEihal6Gm1k/puxp9nTVdJxxZ2B02F27mxdHtf723OidN3WlWlhTJYKjWdwDMeMAdwJBuvQgxWGNUf0M/H5/QYz5+StHHKC6SRuJo7bN6QS24HNExsVao4syIx4ER9+W6xPVzFpe2R6rwBc0Sl1FPZkP30kXfGa8wT6BidZs=;
- In-reply-to: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A601138ACF2576@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
> From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
> Subject: {-ghach} revisited (yet again!)
> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
> Date: Tuesday, 15 December, 2009, 17:26
> naHQun:
> >> <-ghach> is a whole different story all
> together.
> >> Simple rule: Don't use it unless you know what
> you're doing.
> >> [snip]
> >> For most of us, this means don't use -ghach except
> for words found in
> >> the dictionary, until you have a really good feel
> for it.
> Chris:
> >It's funny that you say that, because the sense I got
> from that
> >interview (?) with Okrand is that -ghach is ubiquitous
> and ends up on
> >all kinds of words. Not some (e.g., bare stems),
> but a whole lot. I
> >hardly think saying "don't use it unless you know what
> you are doing"
> >is the message that Okrand is conveying there...
> Whoa... hardly "ubiquitous"!
> Except for the TKD section on {-ghach} (TKD 4.2.9 IIRC?)
> and an interview about using {-ghach} in HolQeD (HQ 3.3) -
> where you would expect to find isolated examples, properly
> and improperly formed - Okrand actually uses it in only ONE
> sentence (i.e. {quvHa'ghach} "dishonor"):
> qaStaHvIS wej puq poHmey vav puqloDpu' puqloDpu'chaj
> je quvHa'moH
> vav quvHa'ghach
> The dishonor of the father dishonors his sons and
> their sons for
> three generations. TKW
> Although theoretically productive, {-ghach}'ed nouns are
> almost never used in "authentic" texts. Perhaps such
> nouns strike the average Klingon warrior as recondite,
> sesquipedalian or even cacophonous, which would explain its
> eschewal. <g>
Other than the examples given in the books, what examples have occurred here among the members of the KLI which have been considered "accepted practice?"