tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 15 13:23:34 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: {-ghach} revisited (yet again!)

Alex Greene (fiat_knox@yahoo.co.uk)



> From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
> Subject: {-ghach} revisited (yet again!)
> To: "'tlhingan-hol@kli.org'" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
> 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?"


      






Back to archive top level